The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent has been signified to the Family Law Act. The Act became law on 17 July 2001. Royal Assent has also been signified to the Product Liability (Amendment) Act, the Budget (No 2) Act, the Department for Employment and Learning Act and the Trustee Act. The Acts became law on 20 July 2001.

North/South Ministerial Council: Tourism Sectoral Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its tourism sectoral format held on Friday 29 June 2001 in Coleraine.

Sir Reg Empey: The third meeting of the North/ South Ministerial Council in its tourism sectoral format took place in Coleraine on Friday 29 June 2001.
Following nomination by the former First and Deputy First Ministers, Dr Seán Farren and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by Dr James McDaid TD, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation. The report has been approved by Dr Farren and is also made on his behalf.
The Council received a verbal report on the recent progress of Tourism Ireland Limited from Mr Andrew Coppel, chairman of the company which included a presentation on the further development of the Tourism Brand Ireland initiative and the planning of marketing programmes for 2002. Mr Coppel also reported that the company board had selected a chief executive officer following an open recruitment process and that an announcement on that appointment would be made shortly.
The Council approved proposals for a staffing structure for the new company, which covered issues such as remuneration, grading, conditions of service and staff numbers. The Council approved the company’s operating plan for 2001, subject to a finalisation of annual budgets.
The Council appointed Mr Noel McGinley as a director of Tourism Ireland Limited. MrMcGinley was recently appointed as acting chairman of Bord Fáilte Éireann. The chairman of Bord Fáilte Éireann and the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) are ex officio members of the company.
The Council discussed a paper on training in the tourism and hospitality sector. That paper contained a progress report on joint training initiatives and set out training proposals being jointly developed by the former Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, and CERT (Council of Education, Recruitment and Training), the Irish tourism and hospitality training authority.
The Council formally approved a number of proposals concerning InterTradeIreland, the North/South trade and business development body. The Council noted InterTradeIreland’s annual report and accounts, a copy of which has been presented to the Assembly.
The Council gave approval for InterTradeIreland to proceed to public consultation on its new draft targeting social need (TSN) action plan. The Council also approved InterTradeIreland’s proposals to develop the demand and supply of equity funding. The Council agreed that its next meeting in tourism sectoral format would take place in the autumn.

Mr Pat Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. He said that the company’s planning of the marketing programme for 2002 is under way. Does that programme give any special recognition to northern counties? By northern counties I mean those north of County Dublin and County Sligo. It is recognised that marketing in those counties is at a premium.

Sir Reg Empey: The Member will be aware that, according to the statement made on 18 December 1998, the establishment of the company specifically mentions that its operations had to take account of Northern Ireland’s circumstances of the past 30 years.
The Member’s question covers areas other than Northern Ireland. One issue with which we have found common cause is that counties north of Sligo, such as Donegal, feel that they do not share in the significant tourism growth that has taken place in recent years.
The success of the outworking of the company’s marketing activity will be measured by the extent to which there is a greater spread of tourism activity, particularly to Northern Ireland. However, the marketing programme includes counties outside Northern Ireland, as it is clear that tourism activity is still concentrated in the south and south-west of the Republic and in Greater Dublin.
One of the key objectives is to ensure that there is a geographic spread and another is to increase the total market. The articles of the company specifically require it to pay particular attention to Northern Ireland’s needs.

Mr David McClarty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Has a decision been made about the exact location of the Northern Ireland headquarters of Tourism Ireland Limited? If not, when is the decision likely to be made?

Sir Reg Empey: I understand the Member’s interest in the matter. The company is actively pursuing premises in Coleraine. The chairman and the chief executive, accompanied by developers and agents, have visited a number of premises in the town and are at the stage of determining the precise site. I hope that a decision will be imminent. The company has been very active, and it recognises the importance of establishing the office in view of the fact that its responsibilities are now to include the IT aspects of the new company. That will be an important part of the activities, and I am looking forward to the early resolution of the issue.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement and the significant progress that has been made in the matter. It is appropriate to put on record the deep appreciation of all those involved in tourism for the significant contribution that the Minister has made since devolution, and the difference it has made to their lives.
Tourism Ireland Limited has been established; the chief executive and his staff have now been appointed. When will the organisation begin to make its presence felt, and when will it make a significant impact on Northern Ireland’s tourism figures?
Can the Minister give any financial assessment of the significant damage done to tourism by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and by the continuing conflict at Drumcree every July?

Sir Reg Empey: The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease came like a bolt from the blue and it had a particular impact on tourism in rural areas. The Executive are currently assessing the economic and financial implications of the disease across the Departments, because a number of them have been affected. That assessment has not yet been completed. However, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that there has been a negative impact; which has been the case in the Republic of Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom.
The summer months, which should be our peak season, have become a difficult period for the past few years because of the wider conflict, including that at Drumcree. Undoubtedly when you are trying to market any place a negative background is something you could well do without.
The company intends to begin its first marketing campaign in the new season of 2002, and I would expect it to start rolling out early in the new year. It was always envisaged that that would be the target because the preparation of material is time-consuming and needs to be carried out with great care. I look forward to the first marketing campaign under the flag of the new company in the spring season of 2002.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland tourism does not need to be an addendum to all-Ireland tourism because of the great opportunities it offers? Does the sale, development and marketing of the Giant’s Causeway tourism opportunity site form any part of the Minister’s discussions? Will he assure the House that the sale, development and marketing of this key tourism area will remain in the hands of Northern Ireland people who have the best interests of Northern Ireland at heart?

Sir Reg Empey: Our purpose is to ensure that Northern Ireland is not an addendum to any particular agenda. As the Member will know, several years ago the NITB entered into arrangements for marketing the island of Ireland as a destination. However, the programme had already been rolled out and established before the NITB became involved. Consequently, it was felt that Northern Ireland’s influence in the design of that programme was less than it ought to have been, and that was also reflected in other publications and literature.
As I have already said, it is written into the company’s articles of association that it must pay specific attention to the needs of Northern Ireland as reflected over the past 30 years. The make-up of the board, with its 50/50 representation, and the fact that the chairman comes from Northern Ireland, should give us confidence that many of the people there will be directing their attention to ensuring that we maximise the benefits of tourism in Northern Ireland.
The sale and development of the Giant’s Causeway are not within the remit of Tourism Ireland Limited. These are matters for the owners of the property. As for the specific marketing of the site, any marketing done in any part of this island will inevitably focus on one of our major assets — the Giant’s Causeway — as the most popular destination on the island.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the Minister’s statement. In paragraph 3 he referred to a chief executive officer. Has that officer been appointed, and where will he or she be based?

Sir Reg Empey: Mr Paul O’Toole has been appointed as chief executive officer. He will be based in the Dublin headquarters of the company. However, he visits Northern Ireland regularly, and he will have an office in Coleraine. I hope to have a meeting with him tomorrow.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. He states that the North/South Ministerial Council gave its formal approval to a number of proposals relating to InterTradeIreland. Will he elaborate on those proposals?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member will be aware that it is possible for any sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council to deal with matters that are not necessarily the remit of that particular meeting, and occasionally that is done for administrative convenience. The Council gave approval to the annual report and accounts, which have been laid before the Assembly and can be found in the Library.
The Council also gave approval to InterTradeIreland to proceed with its consultation on its draft TSN action plan. As the Member will know, this is a statutory requirement. It was felt that, rather than waiting for the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its business and trade development format, it would be better to deal with this issue as early as possible so that consultation could take place, and that has been done.
Finally, the council gave approval to proposals on developing the demand and supply of equity funding. As the Member will know, in the statement of 18 December 1998 the supply of equity funding and people’s access to it was one of the specific remits given to InterTradeIreland. A report on this subject was produced by chartered accountants with the assistance of the Industrial Development Board (IDB). Considerable progress has been made.
It was felt that for convenience and speed those matters would be dealt with under the tourism sectoral format rather than waiting several months until the next trade meeting.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his report. I refer him to the presentation of the development plan for 2002. Can the Minister, the NITB or Tourism Ireland Limited tell Members whether the programme of marketing for the eastern border region, which covers St Patrick’s country (the Mournes and the Cooley peninsula), has been implemented? It is evident that this area has been greatly neglected in the past. Of the recent arrivals of cruise ships in Belfast, every single tour that was presented to passengers directed them northwards. There was no marketing or propaganda available about the very good tourist attractions within twelve miles of their disembarkation. Is that situation remedied in the 2002 marketing programme? If not, will the Minister ensure that it is?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member knows that Tourism Ireland Limited is a company. It has charge of the marketing plan, but that does not mean that all marketing rests with the company. It deals with destination marketing — it markets the island of Ireland to the rest of the world. In our jurisdiction, there are regional tourism organisations, which the NITB will continue to support. The NITB has the ability to market, and will continue to have that ability. Many organisations are taking advantage of that. They are given a budget by the NITB to focus on particular areas. Local authorities will also continue to have a role.
The company will be marketing a destination. All parts and relevant assets in that destination will be incorporated in the marketing material. When you get down to specifics, it is quite clear that there is a limit below which you cannot go when you are marketing a destination. Therefore, the NITB, the regional tourism organisations — including those that cover the Member’s constituency — and the local authorities will continue to have a role that will be financially supported by the NITB.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That being so, will the Minister explain why invitations to the opening of the much- vaunted office in Brussels, which was to make those representations and to boost this country in all aspects, have been cancelled by a phone call to everyone who received an invitation? The office was to be opened on 18 September. How much money was spent on sponsoring the opening, which will not now take place?

Mr Speaker: The subject is within the Minister’s remit, but it is not contained in his statement. It is a matter for the Minister whether he chooses to respond.

Sir Reg Empey: It is not a matter in the statement, as you say, and it is not a specific tourism issue. The opening of the Brussels office was noted in a number of diaries. Invitations were sent to permanent secretaries only, not to third parties. As the Member knows, events taking place in Brussels are frequently noted. A number of potential guests were notified about the opening, but invitations were not issued because it was considered inconvenient. However, the office is functioning and will have a full and proper opening in due course.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not take points of order during ministerial responses, but I will take it at the end of responses to the statement.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to training in the tourism industry.
It is appropriate that we address common issues on a North/South basis. Can the Minister give the Assembly an update on the delivery of those training programmes?

Sir Reg Empey: My colleague Dr Farren presented a paper at the last meeting on 29 June. I am happy to say that considerable progress has been made, and my understanding is that the Department for Employment and Learning, through the Training and Employment Agency, and CERT have agreed a joint training programme and identified a number of persons who will participate. I understand that that programme has commenced. That is a positive development.
Our ability to market and be successful in tourism will be determined by the quality of the product, and one key area will be the skills of individual operatives. Dr Farren’s Department plays a significant role, and a significant effort was made in a very short time to put together a joint proposal. Funding is in place through the Budget, and I look forward to positive results in the near future. I can confirm that the programmes have commenced.

Mr John Dallat: I thank the Minister for his welcome statement and for his frequent visits to Coleraine. Can he give any indication of the number of jobs that will be created locally in Tourism Ireland Limited? Can he assure local businesses that there will be opportunities to tender for contracts through the normal Government procurement procedure?

Sir Reg Empey: It is anticipated that when the office in Coleraine is fully operational, 16 people will be employed. The Member will know that I recently attended a meeting with Coleraine Borough Council. At our suggestion, a number of businesspeople and potential contractors from the borough were invited. The purpose of the meeting was to point out the potential to apply for, and obtain business from, the office in Coleraine, and there was a very good attendance. Questions were asked of officials, and I addressed the meeting. There is now a full understanding among the Coleraine business community of the opportunities that could arise from successful applications to provide goods and services to the company.

Mr Speaker: That is the end of questions to the Minister on the statement.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to say that invitations were not sent out? I have a copy of my invitation to celebrate the official opening —

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The question was outside the remit of the statement, which was on the question of Tourism Ireland Limited and not on the opening of an office in Brussels. There was some generosity tendered in permitting the Minister to respond to the question at all. If there is a question about the details of this invitation. The Member will have to take up the matter with the Minister.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: In his statement there was a reference to something beyond tourists. There was a reference to targeting social need, action plans and equity funding. Surely that comes into this.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: So it is in order to deceive people and send them invitations and then not abide by them?

Mr Speaker: Order. The question that was raised was outside the statement. The Minister made a response. To allow further responses would be clearly out of order. The Member may take up the matter directly with the Minister, or, of course, in another context in the Assembly.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and Draft Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Resolved:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 49(7), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider —
(a) the proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compemsation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001; and
(b) the draft Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, refered by the Secretary of State and to submit a report to the Assembly by 27 November 2001.
Composition: UUP 2 SDLP 2 DUP 2 SF 2 Other Parties 3
Quorum: The quorum shall be five.
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine. — [Mr McGrady.]

Mr Cedric Wilson: I was unsure of the procedure but, if permitted, I would like to make a comment about the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. The opportunity is lost. Members cannot comment on a motion after the matter has been voted on.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I tried to get your attention, Mr Speaker, simply to say that my party will not support the proposal.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member must resume his seat. It was a business motion, and in the normal course of events such matters are not for debate. However, if, at any stage, there is a debate, it must take place before the Question is put — not after. The Question has been put, and while it was by no means unanimous for one reason or another, the ayes have it.

Assembly: Business Committee

Mr Cedric Wilson: Mr Speaker, may I make a statement on the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member may not speak on the previous Question.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I am sorry, but it concerns the change of appointment.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps it may save the Member some trouble and embarrassment if I explain. The motion now before the House is about the membership of the Business Committee, not the Ad Hoc Committee. It is simply to do with a change of membership — the replacement of Mr Ford by Mr McCarthy on the Business Committee.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I assure you that I will not be embarrassed. Those who should be embarrassed are those Unionists who are going to nominate Unionists to sit on that Committee.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is clearly out of order, and he knows it.
Resolved:
That Mr Kieran McCarthy shall replace Mr David Ford on the Business Committee. — [Mr Ford.]

Holy Cross Primary School

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has allocated two hours for the debate on the Holy Cross Primary School. Many Members have indicated that they wish to speak. In order to facilitate as many Members as possible, I have decided to allocate times as follows: the mover of the motion will have 10 minutes to move and 10 minutes to wind up. One amendment has been accepted; the mover will have seven minutes to move and five minutes to wind up. The Minister responding on behalf of the Executive will have available the usual time for a ministerial response to a motion. However, it is for the Minister to decide whether he takes the full time. I remind all Members that those are maximum times, not minimum ones.
All other Members will have five minutes in which to speak. If the Question has not been put by 2:30pm, when Question Time must begin, the debate will resume at 4:00pm and continue until completion. The House will then vote on the amendment and the motion.

Mr Gerry Kelly: I beg to move
That this Assembly supports the right to education of school children attending the Holy Cross Primary School in north Belfast.
Last week the entire globe watched a single image of Belfast. What can only be described as one of the most frightening and depressing episodes in the past 30 years was witnessed from every corner of the globe. Schoolgirls, aged four to 11, and their parents were physically and verbally assaulted. They were made to run a gauntlet of sectarian hatred and violence. Stones, bottles, curses, whistles, air horns and a blast bomb were the ammunition used by the so-called protesters who spent a week mounting a blockade at the Holy Cross Primary School. The protesters’ objectives were to harass, intimidate, injure and, in the case of loyalist paramilitaries, kill Catholic school children and their parents. If anyone was in any doubt about that, the Ulster Defence Association, acting under the name of the Red Hand Defenders, issued death threats to back that up. —[Interruption].
Members will get their chance to defend the protesters in a minute.
After a week of sectarian hatred and violence on Ardoyne Road, much of which was orchestrated by Loyalist paramilitaries and defended, as we can hear, by some within the Unionist political establishment, the blockade was back on the streets this morning. Once again, Catholic children had to pass through a tunnel of bigotry to get to school and receive their education. What has happened on Ardoyne Road is not complicated — it is a clear and simple case of sectarianism in its rawest and most unpalatable form. It is unfortunately, all about "not having a Catholic about the place".
The blockade of the children is politically, ethically and morally wrong. No argument can justify it, and no explanation can underpin it. Protesting against school children is wrong. Screaming sectarian abuse at school children is wrong. Blowing whistles and air horns at children is wrong. Throwing rocks, bottles and blast bombs at children is wrong. Any form of blockade or protest against children on their way to school is wrong. — [Interruption]. I notice that a teacher is attacking what I have said.
Politicians should recognise that those actions are wrong and they should call for the blockade to end. If they do anything short of that, they will let the bigots off the hook and provide them with the political cover for their attacks on young children. It is a matter of protecting the human and civil rights of children.
The blockade began at the end of the last school term, after a week in which Loyalists and the RUC prevented parents and their children from entering their school through the front door. During the 11 weeks of the summer holidays, channels between the Nationalist and Loyalist communities were opened, in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Parents engaged with Loyalist residents through the media and networked for six weeks. Cross- community contact was initiated involving workers from Ardoyne and residents in Glenbryn. Sinn Féin used its contacts in the Loyalist community for five weeks in an attempt to produce a resolution. In the end, all those efforts failed, but not through a lack of sincerity or attempts on the Nationalist and Republican side to reach an accommodation.
Despite the failure of the dialogue to produce a solution, and the week-long series of attacks on children and parents in Ardoyne, all sections of the Nationalist community have put on record their willingness to enter into dialogue urgently. Community leaders, parents, political representatives and ordinary residents are all saying that dialogue is the only way forward and that that must be achieved sooner, rather than later.
Throughout the last week, Unionists, Loyalist politicians and some community workers have sought to justify or excuse the blockade. They have aired spurious arguments through the media. It has been said that the protest is against the parents and not the children. The cameras show that the abuse is aimed directly at the children. Some say that the parents are Republicans. However, any Catholic school in the North will include a mixture of Sinn Féin voters, SDLP voters, non-voters and voters for other parties. Sinn Féin is the largest Nationalist party in the area; the children of its members have a right to education. Like any other children, they have the right to have their parents leave them to school, regardless of their parents’ politics — or lack of politics.
Some say that there is an alternative route. There is no safe alternative route. The route via the Crumlin Road is much longer and passes through the same Protestant area. There have been many attacks on Catholics and their homes on the Crumlin Road. There have been innumerable attacks on other children travelling to and from the other Catholic schools in the area. Furthermore, there is no disabled access, and children have to cross a muddy football pitch to get to the back door of the school.
Parents have also been attacked for allowing their children to go through the blockade. That is very distressing for the parents. Logic is turned on its head when those who perpetrate such acts of violence on children and their parents blame the victims for the abuse. It is a despicable misrepresentation of the deep and heartfelt anxiety that each parent has had to face each day.
It is said that Glenbryn is an isolated Loyalist enclave; it is not. Glenbryn is part of a huge Loyalist or Unionist area stretching from the Crumlin Road to the Antrim Road. In fact, it is difficult to get into the Nationalist Ardoyne area without passing through Loyalist areas. Glenbryn residents complain of attacks on their area by Nationalists — fair enough. However, the vast bulk of attacks in this interface area over the past 5 years have been carried out by Loyalists against Catholics and their homes. The DUP already knows that, because it has checked the statistics. Almost all of the gun and bomb attacks in the area have been by Loyalist paramilitaries on Catholics and their homes.
It is said that peaceful protest is a democratic right — again, fair enough. However, the human rights of children actually supersede any right to protest against them. David Ervine says that it is a cry for help, yet he knows that the UDA is deeply involved and has carried out around 200 bomb and gun attacks against Catholics this year alone. If it is a cry for help, it is a violent one.
Are there problems of deprivation and poverty in Glenbryn? Undoubtedly, there are. It is a working-class Protestant area that has suffered from much neglect. Unfortunately, the Catholic working-class areas have been suffering from the same governmental neglect, discrimination and oppression for generations. Nationalist and Republican residents and community workers are more than willing and ready to share experiences and work out ways to tackle common problems — and there are many common problems of economic and social neglect. However, primary school children are not to blame for any of that and should not be punished.
There is no doubt that communities such as Glenbryn have a range of problems that must be addressed by politicians and community leaders. Such problems are not unique to that estate; they feature in many parts of north Belfast. Politicians and community leaders must work together on those issues as partners, both within and between communities. We must share our experience and knowledge. We must build relationships and accept the responsibility that comes with leadership and with living as neighbours.
I would like to pay tribute to all the parents, children and teachers of Holy Cross Primary School. They have shown magnificent resilience, courage and dignity in the face of an unwarranted onslaught. They have the respect of all decent people. This is the European Year of the Child. The European Convention on Human Rights places the rights of children above the right to protest. In my opinion, protesting against children is illegal and wrong. If Members support the rights of children, they should be united in their call for the blockade to end. Regardless of our differences, we should be united in calling for face-to-face dialogue to resolve the issue. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Speaker: One amendment to the motion has been selected. It was not the only amendment submitted, but it is the one that has been selected, and it is published on the Marshalled List.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "attending" and insert:
"all schools throughout north Belfast."
The amendment is self-explanatory and deals with the issue on an educational basis, which I understood to be the purpose of the motion before the Assembly.
I listened to the proposer and he made little or no reference to education. Instead we had what might be called a Republican rant, which is very unfortunate.
My amendment is inclusive and is worthy of widespread political support in the House. Due to the situation that exists in north Belfast, Members have a duty to act responsibly and not inflame that situation by their words or actions in the House. Many people will be watching for the reaction of the House.
I am speaking as the Ulster Unionist Party spokesman on education in the Assembly. The reason for the amendment is that it is a basic right of all school children, not just those in north Belfast but those throughout Northern Ireland, to be free from any let or hindrance, or interference, as they travel to and from school. That right extends from Coleraine to Crossmaglen. It applies to Holy Cross Primary School and other schools in that area. Many of the scenes we have witnessed in north Belfast have been unedifying and undoubtedly appalling. I want to place on record the Ulster Unionist position that the party condemns any violence in relation to that or any other incident.
All school children have the right to travel to and from school without interference, abuse or obstruction. I am aware of the possible adverse physical and mental health implications that can happen to the children concerned.
Problems have existed in the area for many years. The RUC has been actively involved for well over 20 years in ensuring the safe passage of pupils throughout that area of north Belfast. I am thinking of schools such as the Girls’ Model, the Boys’ Model, Wheatfield Primary School and others. Nominally they are state schools — controlled schools — and for many years their pupils have been subjected to verbal abuse and all manner of unnecessary and unwarranted abuse; and we must condemn that. To some extent both communities have been affected. No later than last week primary school pupils, ranging from primary one to primary three, had their school bus attacked en route to Cliftonville Primary School. The House has a duty to condemn that as well.
I hope we all agree that children should not be treated in this way. We should also agree that children should not be used by parents or, perhaps, by any political group to advance a particular agenda. Many of us have a great concern that there have been elements only too glad to see contention and trouble erupt in that area of north Belfast in an attempt to use it to their own narrow political advantage. Sinn Féin/IRA is directly responsible for that. Some people might see it as a way of taking attention away from political matters in other parts of the world such as Colombia. It is very wrong for Sinn Féin to think that it could do that. It is highly cynical, and it is an abuse of parents and children. It is also wrong to imagine that the events in Colombia will not be subject to proper scrutiny, and that they will not be returned to the centre of the political stage in the coming days.
I welcome the acceptance by the Sinn Féin Member for North Belfast that those who wish to peacefully process on a main route should be allowed to do so. That is welcome news for people in other parts of Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to the rights of Orangemen in Portadown.
It is unfortunate when school children have first-hand experience of the conflict. I remember the murderous attack on a school principal who was attempting to teach his class in Newry Model Primary School. That attack was carried out by Republicans, the IRA. It caused considerable trauma, and as a result the school no longer exists. Children have witnessed murderous attacks on school buses and part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), the RUC and the Royal Irish Regiment (RIR). It is unfortunate that children have been embroiled to a degree in the conflict.
The issues are complex and largely not related to education. I appeal to local community and elected representatives to stand back, cool off and initiate talks to find an early solution. I welcome the Secretary of State’s initiative and look for early progress. I hope that Members will conduct themselves in a manner befitting this House and its reputation.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome Mr Kennedy’s condemnation, as Chairman of the Education Committee, of the blockade and protest at Holy Cross Girls’ School. However, I cannot support the amendment because it distracts from the core issue — that very blockade by Loyalist protesters. It is insufficient to consider this in an omnibus motion which involves other schools that hitherto have not been affected and, I hope, never will be in the way that Holy Cross Girls’ School has been. The amendment serves merely as a distraction from the core issue, and I regret the fact that the Chairman of the Education Committee has moved it.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I rose as an Ulster Unionist party spokesperson on education and not in my role as Chairman of the Education Committee.

Mr Alban Maginness: I accept the Member’s point. Nonetheless, Unionist politicians should not attempt to take attention away from the core issue — the protest and blockade of that school.

Mr Robert McCartney: Read the motion.

Mr Alban Maginness: Mr McCartney will get plenty of opportunity later on, a man who claims to be non- sectarian. The situation in Ardoyne is symptomatic of the failure of all politicians to direct their energies towards dissolving the great sickness of intercommunal sectarianism in our society. The Good Friday Agreement should have given politicians and the community at large the opportunity to address that issue. Unfortunately no attention was paid to addressing sectarianism because of our involvement in political crises.
The two communities in Ardoyne relate to one another in a dysfunctional fashion, with young people hurling bricks and the communities hurling brick bats. That has to end. The Holy Cross Girls’ School has become a victim of the collective failure of politicians and the community to respect each other and to live in peace and friendship. It is ironic that the school, under the leadership of Mrs Anne Tanney, an industrious and visionary headmistress, has led the way in trying to build better community relations with the Protestant community. The school was involved in joint holidays and educational ventures with its fellow primary school, Wheatfield, and ecumenical visits and exchanges with the local Church of Ireland church. Holy Cross Girls’ School is truly a victim of sectarianism. The so-called protest at the school is not a protest at all. It is a blockade of the school, and it has no moral or political justification.
No objective, fair outsider could say that it has any moral or political justification. Therefore, the protest must end because its continuance has no legitimacy whatsoever. If its alleged purpose is to highlight the Glenbryn community’s concerns and grievances, surely after one horrendous week those issues have been sufficiently highlighted publicly. The protest should therefore be terminated to allow a real and constructive dialogue between the two communities — Glenbryn and Catholic Ardoyne — in the Greater Ardoyne area so that all the outstanding issues and grievances affecting the community can be addressed by both communities. There is no doubt that both communities have real concerns and grievances, and there is no doubt that there have been attacks and counter-attacks. All those issues must be addressed. It is not, however, a one-sided situation, and paramount in all of this is the welfare of the children. We must do all we can to end this protest because it is the children who are suffering. They should not be allowed to suffer any further.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Nigel Dodds: We have heard much talk about the suffering of the children. No one has yet mentioned that the only child to have died in this recent period was a Protestant child, murdered as a result of sectarian hatred in north Belfast. It is incumbent on all of us to remember the family of Thomas McDonald, 16, murdered in cold blood last Tuesday morning in the White City area. He is to be remembered, and I deplore any attempt to distract from that.

Mr Alban Maginness: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last remarks referred to the tragic killing of Thomas McDonald. The Member went on to talk about the motivation behind that killing. This matter is sub judice. The Member’s remarks could well be prejudicial with regard to the proper trial of the person who has been accused.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene between two lawyers on this matter. The laws of sub judice are rather strict, and they are rather tighter than people sometimes imagine regarding the timing at which matters become sub judice. I advise Members to be careful and cautious, and I trust that as lawyers they will not take it as inappropriate that I should advise them on this matter. I will certainly listen carefully to what is being said.

Mr Nigel Dodds: It is shameful that in all the talk about concern for children no one has mentioned the terrible plight of that Protestant family in the White City and what they have gone through. The media and commentators, in many cases from afar, who never speak to people to try to understand their fears and concerns or to work with them — with a few notable exceptions such as some members of the clergy and others — have been strangely silent in ignoring what is going on in other parts of north Belfast. If that had been a child from the other community, there would have been worldwide headlines. People in our community are sick, sore and tired of the one-sided coverage of everything that goes on, not only in north Belfast but in Northern Ireland generally. It is important that that is put on the record.
To see Sinn Féin/IRA nauseatingly exploit this situation once again, as they tried to do in Belfast city hall on Friday and have been doing every day this week for their own narrow political ends, is sickening in the extreme. This is from a party and an individual who have been convicted of crimes not only against the community in Northern Ireland but also against children.
We have seen people who have been engaged in taking the blood of innocent people coming to speak about education rights and the rights of children. I have a list of people — schoolteachers, principals and school bus drivers — who have been murdered by IRA/Sinn Féin, and the Minister of Education and his colleagues condoned it and egged them on, and indeed, in many cases, took park in murders. Look at the case of Ronald Graham who was murdered in 1981. That case involved a 13-year-old who was recruited by a teacher in IRA/ Sinn Féin. In other cases, teachers were murdered in front of their children. George Saunderson was shot at the primary school in Teemore in front of the children and kitchen staff.
This shows the type of people who are now lecturing us about the rights of children. Let me make it absolutely clear that I oppose the exploitation of children. I do not believe that children should be exploited for political purposes. I do not think that they should be abused. I do not think that any of us want any type of violence — we have condemned that. Let us be very clear who is doing the exploiting. As was stated in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ the other day:
"What part was played by Gerry Kelly, the local Sinn Féin representative and IRA bomber, who was yesterday fulminating against the Protestants?"
Who persuaded people not to take the alternative route that was advised by the local school headmaster, the board of governors, the teachers, ‘The Irish News’ editorial, the ‘News Letter’ and others to allow a cooling-off period? They are always lecturing us about the merits of alternative routes. Why was it that that advice was ignored at the behest of IRA/Sinn Féin? What has its role been in ensuring that this problem has been exacerbated, agitated and exploited? IRA/Sinn Féin are up to their necks in ensuring that this problem continues, rather than trying to get it solved. I commend everybody in north Belfast — community workers, clergy and politicians on the ground — who are genuinely trying to find a way forward in very difficult circumstances.
People have referred to underlying reasons: there are many. However, if this were a purely sectarian "hatefest", as the SDLP and others have been talking about, there are many ways in which schools could be blocked, and many things that people could do. This is a community that has suffered at the hands of IRA/Sinn Féin for years. Their concerns, injustices and inequities have been ignored by the media, who are now up there in their thousands. For months during the summer, when the Protestant community and others were seeking talks and demanding that talks should take place, the media were absent. The Protestant community were rebuffed by those who said "Oh no, we do not want to listen to all the issues". We have to try to find a way forward — not do what Sinn Féin does —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up

Mrs Eileen Bell: The start of the new term at Holy Cross Primary School was a sad and graphic example of a very violent type of physical and mental child abuse. Last week we saw a sinister development with children being used as political pawns to highlight grievances and concerns. No apparent thought was given as to how the awful scenes of hatred, stone- throwing, bottle-throwing — not to mention the pipe bombs — would affect the children and linger with them for a long time.
North Belfast, as other Members have said, has been an anxious area for a long time. I remember working in Ardoyne during the troubles, and it was dreadful. However, there was a sense of community, but that now seems to have been lost.
Many children have already been prescribed all types of medical treatment for anxiety. It is horrible to think how much more diazepam, or Valium, has been prescribed for those children. We saw the children walking up to their school, being taunted, experiencing all types of violence, and having to be guided to school by terrorised and often frightened parents, riot police in full gear, and fully armed soldiers. Remember, we are talking about four-year-olds and five-year-olds.
Staff and auxiliary workers have had to keep the school open. They must have been feeling intimidated and worried about their responsibility to the pupils. It was terrible this morning to listen to a snippet of a television interview with Dr Tan, a local GP. He expressed fully and clearly his concerns at having to prescribe sedatives because of the situation.
The situation at Wheatfield, while less violent and not as graphic, is still untenable. Those issues should also be addressed because those children have been involved in completely unacceptable situations.
Army and RUC personnel have been given a terrible assignment that should never have been necessary — that of protecting, facilitating and guiding four-year-olds and five-year-olds at the start of their educational experience. Are we really, as citizens of Northern Ireland, losing all sense of propriety and rationality in our apparently crazed desire to achieve our own interests and aims at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in our society, our primary school children? Are we going to start on the nursery schools next?
It is to be hoped that all concerned in the two main areas will take up the Secretary of State’s offer of negotiations with open minds and no preconditions. Surely the church leaders must also be listened to, as well as the community workers who have done a wonderful job in trying to help the parents and all concerned.
Everyone must be determined to engage in principled compromise so that last week’s scenes will never be repeated. No concern or grievance can be worth further violence, greater intimidation, or even worse, death, as happened last week, to anyone, let alone children. Worst of all, no such pattern of behaviour has ever ended in agreement. Unfortunately, Holy Cross and Wheatfield are not the only schools affected by this wave of hatred and intolerance. There are already rumblings of potential trouble throughout many other parts of Belfast.
On behalf of the Alliance Party, I wish to put on record our sincerest appreciation and our deepest gratitude to Mrs Tanney and her teaching and ancillary staff. I also thank Father Troy and the board of governors for keeping the situation as normal as possible for the children and their parents, and for keeping the curriculum going.
I also thank the Army and the RUC, who have done an excellent job in horrifically sensitive circumstances, and the little children for their bravery in the face of such frightening so-called protest. Let us hope that they can continue their education with safe passage in a secure atmosphere, and that the horrors of the last week can be put to the backs of their minds. Unfortunately, it may well be impossible to forget those horrors completely. Is that not a dreadful indictment of us all?
We must not forget that the basic element to be addressed in this situation is fear. The fear of the children, the fear of the parents, the fear of both communities, fears for the present and fears for the future. If we do not address those fears in all their complexities, nothing but further violence can result.
I hope and pray that the children will have only dim and distant memories of their experience.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Fraser Agnew: On my way to the House this morning I thought to myself that it would be nice if we were able to speak in moderate tones about the terrible events of last week, and how sorry we were that all of this had happened. Then we come here and hear so many dishonest statements by Sinn Féin about the situation in Ardoyne.
Strangely enough, we are told that most of the damage is being done to the Nationalist and Roman Catholic community. There is not one person on this side of the House who would not decry any such activities. The truth of the matter, however, is something entirely different. All the violence that we have seen in north Belfast in June, July and August has come from one source. It has all been highly orchestrated and organised. That is a fact.
During the past week we have seen the Protestant community in upper Ardoyne being demonised and made out to be some sort of monsters because of what has been happening in their area. Let me make it clear. In front of me I have 10 pages of incidents in the Twaddell Avenue area alone. These incidents did not happen over the past two or three weeks or months; they go back to the 1970s. These pages have been kept by a resident of Twaddell Avenue. They represent a catalogue of incidents that have been visited on her home and those of her neighbours over the past 25 years, including petrol bombings, riots, and broken windows. Why has that been forgotten? For purely political reasons. We have to describe today as a sad day, and, as a Protestant I have not been happy with the events of the past week. I have seen a good deal happen in this society. Last Monday morning I stood alongside Billy Hutchinson and heard him being threatened by some of those coming up from Ardoyne.
What we saw last Monday morning was a parade of Provos into a Protestant area, and that has been forgotten. More Provos have walked up Ardoyne Road every morning, taking children to school, than have school children. That is a fact, but we still hear nonsense from these people.
None of us is happy about the violence and protests, because such activity is largely self-defeating. Nevertheless, they have taken place because people from that community have been forgotten and their grievances ignored. It has been forgotten that they cannot go to the post office to collect their pension; or to the library in Ardoyne; or to the shops to buy groceries. Those are legitimate grievances. They cannot walk down the main arterial route, yet others can walk through a Protestant area.
Why are people walking from upper Ligoniel, past the back entrance to the school, and gathering at the Ardoyne shops to walk up to the front entrance? Every morning these people come into the area for one reason alone: to intimidate and antagonise a Protestant community. Members of that community have no objection to school children’s going to school; around a dozen children have been using the front entrance to the school for years. The others have been using the rear entrance, which is handy for car parking and so on. For the large part, these points have been ignored.
Let there be no mistake that these activities have been orchestrated by Provisional Sinn Féin. Why? We must record the simple answer and call a spade a spade: it is all about ethnic cleansing. They want the Prods out of upper Ardoyne, and they want those houses for their own people. It is not a coincidence that this is happening throughout north Belfast.
It is Protestant homes that are being attacked and are lying empty in the Tigers Bay and White City areas. It is Protestant, not Roman Catholic, homes that are being visited and bombed as part of this violence. The evidence is there for everyone to see. Last week the tragic death of a young boy took place. On the previous night three homes in the Whitewell Road area were damaged by Republican mobs from the Longlands area.
The Protestant people in isolated communities in north Belfast have been under constant attack for some time. Those attacks have been cleverly orchestrated as part of what I suggest is an insidious plan to ethnically cleanse the Protestant community from parts of north Belfast. That community suffers the same social and economic problems as the Roman Catholic community. However, this community has, for the large part, been forgotten because its suffering is regarded as if it were part of something sectarian. It is nothing of the sort.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I support the amendment in the name of Danny Kennedy. Problems exist in schools across north Belfast, but Members are focusing on Holy Cross Primary School today. I remind Members that the problem did not start last week; it started on 19 June. It seems that people do not realise that.
It sometimes sickens me to listen to MLAs who, having merely watched events on television rather than seeing them at first hand, come here with their written speeches and tell us all about it. I have been in that area every day and night for over 12 weeks. On 19 June a parent carried out an attack on people in this community. When he returned with others in his car to continue the attack, and when parents left their children in the street, it was Protestant women who took the Catholic children back into the school for their own safety. That is a fact that people should remember.
We could quote story after story, and I am sure that Sinn Féin Members could do likewise, but that would not resolve the problem. Irrespective of whether the SDLP believes this to be a plot against all Catholics, if Protestants wanted to stop children from going to Catholic schools, they need only move 50 yards to the right. On the Crumlin Road they will find the Little Flower, St Gabriel’s and Our Lady of Mercy schools.
All of those schools have continued to operate. None of them have been involved in stoppages, blockages or pickets. They have been allowed to go on as normal. I am sure that the other MLAs in North Belfast, not just me, have at some time spoken to the principals of those schools — probably with the exception of the Little Flower — about the behaviour of some of the secondary school pupils or their parents. Since I have been an elected representative I have had those discussions.
Members must focus on the problem. Some adults accompanying the children to Holy Cross Primary School are acting in a sectarian manner; physical and verbal abuse have been doled out. The two communities must get into dialogue to resolve the problem.
The Education Minister is in the House today. Members should probably be talking about post-primary education rather than Holy Cross Primary School, but unfortunately they are not. If there is anything to be learned about pickets of schools, Sinn Féin can teach us a lesson or two. Do Members remember the Pushkin Prize and a school in Armagh being picketed?
What will happen when members of the new Police Service of Northern Ireland are invited into Catholic schools by the Catholic Church? How many pickets will there be then on Catholic schools? How many Catholic children and their parents will be prevented from going to school?
I stood on the Ardoyne Road in June and saw Nationalists prevent a group of Travelling children who wanted to get to school from doing so. Sky television captured those pictures. People who had the luxury of watching Sky television that day told me that the events were not covered. One must ask why people capture what they do on television.
There is a case in Galway where pupils or their parents do not want Travelling people in their school, but I do not hear too many people complaining about that. I have not seen many members of Sinn Féin or the SDLP from up here rushing down to support those Travellers. That is racist. But of course it is only racist or sectarian when it comes from this community.
Members, political leaders and community leaders in Ardoyne need to recognise the sectarianism that exists. Until that is recognised, the problem will never be solved. The people in Glenbryn have a legitimate case which should be heard, as do the people in Ardoyne who walk their children to school. However, it is the two communities that need to talk this out and nobody should stand in the way of that dialogue. For 12 weeks the communities have been unable to do this. Political leaders must encourage the two communities to sit down and have dialogue. That is the only way forward.
It is said that the core issue is about the children not getting to school. That might be the core issue for the Nationalist community; it is not the issue in Glenbryn. The issue in Glenbryn is that there are adults — not parents — accompanying those children to school who have prevented people in that area from going about their daily lives.

Ms Jane Morrice: I rise with a feeling of terrible shame. That shame is not based on how the world has watched the scenes that have taken place in north Belfast over the past week. Rather, it is based on the obvious fact that we as a people, as politicians, as mothers and fathers and as a society have not done enough for our children. Mixed with my shame is an incredible sense of responsibility for what has gone on. Now more than ever, Members must redouble their efforts to bring Northern Ireland to its sanity. If they do not, they condemn another generation and another and another to exactly what we have suffered — hatred, bigotry, violence, bloodshed, anger, suspicion, and sectarianism. The Assembly cannot let that happen. Politicians must stand together. We must speak out. We must learn from each other, understand and deal with this together.
We all know that dialogue holds the key. The process of dialogue that was initiated over the summer was an important beginning. However, as Billy Hutchinson and others have said, that process must be given the space to work, and it needs to happen fast. The House welcomes the fact that it will start again this week.
Media coverage has been referred to. It is essential to recognise that media coverage can distort the way we are. This matter must be dealt with at community level and through the political and community representatives, not through cameras and microphones. The local community and the people at the grass roots are what matter. We have been trying to contact them to find out whom they want as their representatives to get the dialogue going. That is essential.
It is important that we address the issues of economic and social problems, deprivation and poverty. However, we must also address, as a matter of urgency, the issue of sectarianism, which is rife throughout our society.
In July this year the Women’s Coalition put forward a proposal to the Secretary of State recommending the creation of a commission on sectarian violence. We have a list of aims and objectives for the commission. These are to examine the frequency and nature of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and the existing approaches by statutory agencies, including the police, and the range of community and voluntary organisations, to the violence.
We must explore the development of dynamics at interface areas and pay particular attention to local practices that increase tensions, such as graffiti and flags, and the issues relating to areas where young people gather. We must explore the effectiveness of community relations and see how well cross-community projects in interface areas are working. We must examine the differences between sectarian violence in rural areas and sectarian violence in urban areas. We must look at best practice in peace building and community relations and offer a broad strategic overview for dealing with communal violence and promoting peace building.
The situation in north Belfast has highlighted the need to get to grips with sectarianism and incidents of violence. We do not believe that sectarian violence has to be an inevitable part of life in Northern Ireland. There is no acceptable level of violence. It can be tackled, it must be tackled, and it must be reduced.
We accept that it is a complex and difficult issue for our society, but it must be addressed for the sake of those living in fear. A commission would explore those issues —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Robert McCartney: I have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the blockade of children attempting to attend Holy Cross Primary School. It is unacceptable and it is wrong. However, I think that we should look at the underlying causes.
In the late 1940s and in the 1950s I walked every day from the lower Shankill through the heart of the lower Falls to Grosvenor High School behind the Royal Victoria Hospital. At the same time boys attending St Malachy’s got off the bus at the Falls Road end of Dover Street. They walked up Dover Street across the lower Shankill and made their way up Denmark Street to St Malachy’s. In neither case were any of them interfered with, and I have no recollection of any difficulty.
From 1962 to 1969 I lived in a housing estate in Dunmurry. My next door neighbours were a Catholic family. I could not have had better neighbours; they took my children to school from time to time, and I took theirs.
However, as a result of the so-called peace process, the community is more bitterly divided than at any other time. The bogus peace process has not brought peace; it has segregated and divided the communities into their respective ghettos and has created small enclaves of Protestants and Catholics who are under pressure from the dominant group to which they are adjacent.

Prof Monica McWilliams: We grew up together.

Mr Robert McCartney: Yes, we did all grow up together. We grew up together in a better place than Northern Ireland is today. We grew up in a less vicious, a less sectarian, a less divided place. Although I support, as everyone must, the right of school children to have access to their place of education, I deplore the nauseating hypocrisy of Gerry Kelly. Gerry Kelly, who murdered people, who murdered an anaesthetist, who placed and who helped to place bombs where they would go off indiscriminately — perhaps murdering children — represents and has been part of an organisation that has orphaned and widowed hundreds of people. That he should come here and prattle about the rights of children — a right that everyone acknowledges — must be the height of hypocrisy.
We have Mr Alban Maginness talking about the core issue. The core issue is the process that the people of the Protestant Unionist community recognise is directed towards a transitional arrangement for a united Ireland. They have become fearful for their future. In many areas they are being subjected to Nationalist triumphalism and are reacting as all fearful people do.
Something has to be done about the underlying causes that produce the terrible symptoms that have manifested themselves in the events around Holy Cross Primary School. However, that is not the issue. The issue is the so-called peace process that indicates the cynicism of both Governments. The Irish Government want to achieve a united Ireland and the British Government want to offload a part of the United Kingdom that has become difficult to manage. There has been prattle about what the so-called peace process has delivered. It has delivered nothing but division and increasing bitterness. Yes, there are jobs for many people, such as the Women’s Coalition, which witters on about lofty sentiments that have absolutely no connection with people’s real fears.
We have to stop the Holy Cross Primary School situation and we have to do something about violent people such as Gerry Kelly and those on the Loyalist side who dominate those communities and who use children for their own purposes.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion. I welcome Robert McCartney’s forthright statement that the blockade of Holy Cross Primary School is wrong and should cease. However, I was disappointed by many other Unionist speakers, both this morning and in the past week. They have failed to give clear leadership and advice to the Glenbryn community in dealing with its problems and its perception of a protest that has created more victims to add to our history of victims across many decades. New victims were made last week of children of four years of age and upwards from a primary school. We have to deal with that failure of leadership.
The image of the North that went across the globe was of sickening, ugly sectarianism. The question is, is that an accurate judgement of this place or is it wrong? I do not think that it is. I accept that sectarianism exists across the board, but I believe that there is a basic sectarianism in this place which, from its formation in the 1920s, has defined politics ever since.
We could discuss again the 50 years of one-party rule, or the Unionists, who were absolutely secure in the belief that it was their right to rule and that this place would exist unchanged and under their domination for ever. Yet they had such a lack of confidence as to persecute and inflict discrimination on the Nationalist community, and to deal with them as a second-class community over that period. Therein lies the clue to the difficulties we have now.
It was illuminating and useful that Robert McCartney addressed the implications of the peace process. I can empathise with his analysis that the people of the Unionist community are no longer certain of the future, and they react as people who interpret the peace process as a transition to a united Ireland. Republicans have the same view, but we take a positive perspective on it. It is legitimate for others to take a different perspective. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged as a legitimate aspiration. It is a normal aspiration — it is not threatening. It is not a justification for people to behave in the way that they did last week. I do not argue that the residents of Glenbryn are untypical. We have had some references to examples in the past. From time to time it is useful to remind ourselves of this so that we do not develop a single or holier-than-thou perspective on this problem. We all have problems to deal with. However, last week represented a singular failure of political leadership at a vital moment.
David Ervine made a pertinent comment which resonated with me; he said that it was a cry for help. I acknowledge that, because so often we have had to deal with pain in our community. We have had to deal with people reacting in particular ways to that pain. However, at all times there is a need to give leadership and to demonstrate that there is a way of dealing with these problems that does not involve creating more victims.
I do not know the people in the images we saw last week, but some of them may be grandmothers — they were of that age. Were they born with those attitudes? No more than those children who were attempting to go to school last week were born with sectarian attitudes. What is it about our society that has created this? What are we doing now to prevent it? If there is more overt sectarianism in our society, is it not to be understood as a knee-jerk or atavistic reaction to a process of peaceful change?
I see some political representatives sniggering at the idea that they have a duty to give responsible leadership and to help people understand that a process of change is inevitable. In the circumstances of our shared history of conflict, it is essential. If we could all embrace this process of change, it would become easier and less painful. Let us put a stop to creating more and more victims.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate for two reasons. First, it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the principal, staff and board of governors of the Holy Cross school. I take the opportunity to do this because, as a teacher for many years, I know the type of pressures that this imposes on the teaching profession. Thank heavens they have been able to give the type of guidance that is wise and in the interests of the children.
Secondly, we should be looking forward as positively as we can. Throughout the summer the community relations unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister worked with the Department of Education, the Community Relations Council for Northern Ireland, the Mediation Network of Northern Ireland and other bodies and people to ensure a peaceful return to school. Despite their efforts they were unsuccessful.
In view of the events of last week, it has been necessary to put those efforts on a more public footing and in a wider context. Hence, the initiative in seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State and the agreement of Friday that we work together. Hence, the work that is now under way to establish a formal mechanism for dialogue to address a full range of local social, economic and community issues both now and in the longer term. Although that dialogue must essentially be between the groups at local level, it will of necessity involve the Executive and the Secretary of State.
I do not want to be prescriptive at this stage about the nature and form of that dialogue. That would not be helpful. Officials have instead been asked to begin a process of careful preparation. We want to build on and facilitate — not cut across existing measures and initiatives. The focus should be firmly on local issues.
North Belfast must not be used as a boxing ring for settling the wider pressures, conflicts and scores throughout Northern Ireland or as a pawn in a wider political context. What must be clear is that those efforts can only be effective if a peaceful and constructive atmosphere is created. It is time for everyone to de-escalate, not ratchet things up. I note and agree with the observations made by Bishop Walsh that there should be no need for supporters of the children and their parents. The fewer the numbers on both sides on the Ardoyne Road, the better.
It is self-evident that forms of protest that intimidate young children on the way to school are damaging the prospects of dialogue. They are damaging the reputation of the community on whose behalf the protests are being made, and of north Belfast as a whole. They are also damaging the efforts of the Executive to promote the regeneration of that area and the image and standing of Northern Ireland throughout the world.
I am glad that the Executive will be discussing the situation at its next meeting. Colleagues will be asked to review their policies and programmes on north Belfast and to ensure that we make the maximum contribution to addressing the issues on all sides. The Executive will review the issues of housing, education, social development and community relations, and Ministers across the parties will be able to contribute positively. I hope that a further statement will then be made to the Assembly.
I conclude with the one thing that we have in common. We all have children. We are all parents. We have all dealt with young people. Let us now take this opportunity to address all the roots of the problems, however those roots are perceived, in such a way that that common factor, the welfare of young people, will be our priority as and from now.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is interesting to note that a report by Prof Liam Kennedy which was issued last month contained an analysis of the age and gender of victims of paramilitary punishments in Northern Ireland. A summary of his report, to be laid before the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, states that punishment shootings of children, as well as brutal assaults, are much more prevalent in Northern Irish society than was previously thought. Principally, the UDA, the UFF, the Provisional IRA and the UVF, which are all connected to the so-called peace process, carry them out. The Provisional IRA has targeted children to a greater extent than Protestant paramilitaries. That is part of the summary of an up-to-date report.
I am very glad that I am not supported by the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, nor does Lindy McDowell agree with me religiously or politically, but the Nationalist community should perhaps listen to what she said:
"In nationalist areas the protest would never have happened. The wealthy, powerful Sinn Fein would of course have handled the residents differently. Sinn Fein is hot on claiming victimhood.
All week Gerry Kelly (trivialising the horror of the segregation and degradation of African Americans by comparing it to a squalid local turf war) has been rattling on about Alabama and the back of the bus. This is the same Gerry Kelly who is connected to the same Republican Movement which over the years has deposited many a pound of Semtex at the back of many a bus. The IRA, let us not forget, once shot dead a school bus driver in front of the children he was taking to school. No worries about children’s rights there. I attended a tiny rural primary school. A ten-year-old girl a few years after me was murdered by the IRA, blown to pieces along with her father as she too was being taken to school. Which is why I find the sight of Martin McGuinness wringing his hands about the rights of innocent children so vomit inducing.
Many will have noted" —
and I have noted even in this debate —
"that the killing of a 16-year-old Protestant boy this week didn’t even make the national news. If Tom McDonald had been a Catholic, would it not have made headlines across the world? There is no excuse for thugs and bullies who terrorise little children. Rightly the world’s spotlight has been turned on those who do. But what about the people with genuine grievances who cannot get their voices heard? By ignoring them, aren’t we sending a dangerous message?"
There has been much cant and humbug all over about the tragic happenings that have taken place. For a long time I, with my colleagues, have been pushing the standing of Protestant people in those areas, but the ears of Ministers and Westminster have been closed to them. The time has come not only to listen to those people’s grievances but to deal with them. We hear the IRA crying aloud about how children are treated, and we think of how it has treated the whole community in past years.
I have no intention of obeying the summons from a man by the name of Mailey who has told me that as a leader I must go to a meeting. A man who shoots a policeman dead is not a man with whom I do business.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid the Member’s time is up.

Mr Gerry Adams: All people, all children, whether Protestant or Catholic or of no religion whatsoever, have the right to live, to move freely, to shop and to be educated where they want. I have made it very clear that my position is one of sympathy with the family of Thomas McDonald, and I do so again today.
I have listened intently to what our friends on the Unionist Benches have said. They too need to listen to what they have said and to the type of message and signal that they are sending from this Floor. The proposal deals with the Holy Cross school, because the pupils of that school are victims of a blockade. I commend the teaching staff, the pupils, the families and all who are caught up in that situation. The blockade is wrong and should be ended.
I listened intently to Nigel Dodds, Ian Paisley and Danny Kennedy, and even if everything that they say is true and accurate, what relevance has it to young school children? Ian Paisley and Robert McCartney say that Gerry Kelly had no right to put the proposal forward. The people of north Belfast gave him that right. Unionist speakers rail against the image presented to the world of sectarian, anti-Catholic action against young people. That is an accurate image. Those who have made their political careers from sectarianism — most famously the previous Member who spoke, Ian Paisley — must reflect on their roles since the 1960s in creating the depressing situation and difficulties that are visited upon all of us.
We are told that the blockade is a cry for help from the Unionist and Loyalist section of people in north Belfast. What does that say about their representatives? What does it say about those who represent Unionism and Loyalism in Belfast and in the Six Counties? I, and others, are prepared for dialogue. It is an untruth to say that there has been no dialogue. There was dialogue, and attempts were made during the summer and before that to reach some understanding about the situation. What we have heard today from the Unionist representatives are excuses. We must be clear that sectarianism, racism, prejudice and bigotry are wrong. The House should unite in sending that message from here today — whatever else it is divided on, whether it is ideology, the constitutional question, or social matters.
It is important that Republicans listen to what the Unionist and Loyalist people of north Belfast and other places are saying. They clearly suffer the same social deprivations and disadvantage — albeit from a different historical route — as people from the Nationalist parts of Belfast. However, to rectify those rights they must be prepared to sit down and put the onus where it belongs: on Government, whether in London or in this place. They must stop treating young children and their parents as pawns.
A good start could be made here today if Members say that the blockade is wrong and should be lifted. Failure to do that will encourage the bigots, the rejectionists and the other good people who are caught up in the situation. Therefore, I ask for support for the proposal. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Unfortunately Mr Cobain has been taken quite ill. I will represent his views as best I can. I am indebted to Dr McDonnell, who has left the Chamber to help Mr Cobain. Therefore, please excuse me if this is not quite to the same quality as it would have been had Mr Cobain delivered it.
The situation in north Belfast is symptomatic of a much wider problem affecting that area. There is a need to find solutions to that overall problem. North Belfast is riddled with endemic social and economic problems that are probably the worst in Northern Ireland. A recent Housing Executive report showed that north Belfast has some of the worst housing in western Europe. The report highlighted the fact that such is the appalling condition of housing in north Belfast, the Housing Executive needs to spend about £135 million over the next seven years to put those conditions right.
With regard to education, a majority of children in north Belfast leave school without any formal qualifications. They face the problem of trying to find work in a society where holding some sort of qualification is becoming more important and more likely to be a requirement. Many pupils in north Belfast have problems with basic numeracy and literacy.
With regard to health, life expectancy is lower for those who live in north Belfast. The area faces endemic problems. There is a need for additional resources in the areas of health, education and housing to address some of these problems, not just in Ardoyne but throughout north Belfast, if we are not to see the type of scenes that we have witnessed over the past week to 10 days re-enacted in other parts of north Belfast.
A community infrastructure needs to be rebuilt across the whole area. Capacity building and community development are needed. The community needs a facility where it can come together to discuss and devise strategies to tackle the problems. Mr Cobain wishes to make it clear that he supports the proposals announced by the acting First Minister and the Secretary of State. He is pleased that they have followed his calls for the possible establishment of a forum.
If any area in Northern Ireland deserves to have immediate attention paid to the serious and deep-rooted problems that it faces, it is north Belfast. The problems can only be solved by the community working together. For that reason it is important to create the capacity and the mechanisms in the community to enable it to do that.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. This is a crucial and overdue debate, and I am grateful to Gerry Kelly for tabling the motion on this important issue. However, as Minister of Education and as a parent, this is a debate that I hoped and prayed we would never need to have. As other Members have said, throughout the sad history of the troubles — even when the conflict was at its height — schools remained havens of peace where children were protected from events outside. Children could come to school without interference and in the knowledge that regardless of what was happening elsewhere, they would be taught in a safe and secure environment. It is deeply regrettable that this privilege has not been afforded to the young children of Holy Cross Primary School — or Wheatfield Primary School, which has also been affected by the events of the past miserable and distressing week.
Who could ever forget the appalling scenes, transmitted across the world last week, of terrified children aged four, five and six screaming in fear and clinging to their parents? Tears were streaming down their cheeks, while grown adults screamed sectarian abuse, spat and threw missiles at them. Who could ever forget the terror on their faces, and their parents’ faces, when a blast bomb exploded beside them? Who could ever forget that these were just little children starting back to school at the beginning of a new school year?
In an incident not connected with schools, Thomas McDonald, himself a school boy, was killed, and I wish to extend my sincerest condolences to his sorrowing family.
On Thursday there was an attack on pupils travelling home from Cliftonville Primary School. Let us be clear and unequivocal — protests affecting school children, whether they involve throwing bombs or missiles, sectarian chanting, blowing whistles, letting off klaxon horns or turning backs, are completely unacceptable and must stop.
I believe I speak for the vast majority of people when I say that all children have the right to travel to school unhindered and without fear, and to be educated in an environment where they feel safe, secure, and ready and able to learn. It is the responsibility of everyone in society — but particularly of elected representatives — to guard and maintain that right.
Unfortunately there has been a marked failure by some Members to shoulder this responsibility. Although this issue first emerged in June, it was not adequately addressed over the summer. When it erupted again last Monday, on the first day of the new term, it fell to the parents, the teachers, the school governors and school authorities to pick up the pieces. They responded magnificently in the most difficult and uncertain circumstances, and they deserve the utmost credit. The children are always the teachers’ priority, and each day staff in both schools affected by this situation have ensured that the children are reassured, settled down and quickly introduced to the comforting routine of the school day. Given the circumstances, it is humbling and a tribute to the skill and professionalism of the principals and teachers of Holy Cross Primary School and Wheatfield Primary School that normal lessons have continued and the children have been able to progress their learning despite the stresses and strains of the past week.
A vital role has also been played by the statutory education authorities — the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, Belfast Education and Library Board, and officials from my Department — in working in a closely co-ordinated manner to provide advice, guidance and support to the schools caught up in the middle of this community conflict. These agencies and the two schools have come together as a group in order to identify and put in place practical measures to assist the teachers and children in dealing with the immediate and longer-term impacts of this stressful situation.
Schools of all types across the North have been in contact with Holy Cross Primary School to express their horror at what the children and staff have to endure and to offer their support.
As Education Minister, I have been extremely heartened and proud to see the wider education community once again pulling together in the face of adversity to assert and maintain the basic right of children to education. That has been one of the positive things to come out of this dreadful situation. I applaud all those who raised their voices against this protest and called for it to end.
From the outset courageous leadership was shown by church leaders, including those from the Protestant community, who spoke out in such a forthright manner against the attacks on the Holy Cross children.
I said in a press conference in Ardoyne last Tuesday that this was a community issue that could not be left to the schools, authorities and the parents to sort out, and that there was a responsibility on politicians and community leaders, particularly those representing the local area, to get discussions going and reach an accommodation. Since then there have been calls for a resolution from all the political parties, and I particularly welcome the statement from the Education Committee affirming the right of children to travel to and from school free from interference, abuse or obstruction. Clearly there are wider issues of concern to both communities in Ardoyne which have not been addressed and have spawned a highly charged context to the current dispute. These must be tackled as part of a long-term solution, and this can only be achieved through the immediate commencement of dialogue between the two communities.
This is a task for local politicians and community leaders. It is not a task for children, schoolteachers and boards of governors, who must immediately be relieved of the terrible pressures that they face every day.
The protest is wrong — it is untenable and must stop immediately. Although the situation has improved a little in recent days, and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made, much still remains to be done. I therefore sincerely appeal to everyone in the Assembly, to community leaders and to people of influence outside the House to do everything in their power to resolve the dispute immediately and restore to the children of Holy Cross and Wheatfield the safe, secure and normal educational environment to which they are entitled. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I hope that I will have an opportunity to address the many points raised by Members. There were some points with which I agreed, and others with which I could not agree because of the way in which they were made. It has been a healthy exercise for the Assembly to consider the issue. I was rather surprised that Alban Maginness — and indeed Mr Mallon, the acting Deputy First Minister — said, on behalf of the SDLP, that they could not support my amendment. I remind the House of the reason why I put down the amendment: I believe that it is a basic right for all children — in Holy Cross, in Wheatfield, in north Belfast, in Newry and Armagh and in all parts of Northern Ireland — to attend school in a completely peaceful environment. I cannot see why the SDLP cannot support that. I can only conclude that in some way it is, as usual, running scared of SinnFéin. That is a matter of huge regret, given that Mr Alban Maginness and Mr Mallon both made a contribution to the debate. On behalf of my party, I want to express condolences to the McDonald family, who were mentioned by Mr Dodds.
Several Members did not actually refer to the amendment. They preferred to address themselves to the main motion, or to what they thought the main motion represented. It will be interesting to see where political parties and individuals will stand at the conclusion. I readily accept the points made by Members for North Belfast, such as Mr Agnew and MrBillyHutchinson, who are rightly concerned about organised campaigns conducted against the local Protestant community. They have to deal with that at the coalface and hear genuine concerns expressed by members of the local Unionist population.
I agree with Mr Mallon that things should not be ratcheted up. Many Members have attempted not to do that, while others have used terms that are highly damaging. I hope that people will reflect on what has been said. Dr Paisley was right to refer to the report by Prof Liam Kennedy highlighting the damage done to school children and young people, over a period of many years, by Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries.
I thank my Colleague, Tom Hamilton, who stood in for Mr Cobain, the Ulster Unionist Member for North Belfast. Many points raised in that speech should be seriously and urgently considered. I welcome the proposals from the Executive and the Secretary of State and hope that they can be speedily implemented.
The Minister of Education has a highly selective memory: he appears not to remember the many appalling incidents that affected school children and teachers over the years. Regrettably, he did not acknowledge them. Consideration must be given to the staff and everyone associated with Holy Cross Girls’ School and Wheatfield Primary School. North Belfast is not Alabama, and attempts to create a Palestinian West Bank scenario should be avoided.

Mr Gerry Kelly: I will ignore the vitriol of the debate, the personal attacks on me and all the stuff about SinnFéin; it is irrelevant to the blockade on children going to a school. The Assembly must come to a conclusion. Danny Kennedy said that I welcomed the media support and that a peaceful protest was acceptable; I did not say that. I said that any protest, even if it was peaceful, was not acceptable if it were against children.
Numerous people spoke about Thomas McDonald, who was tragically killed. The parents of the Holy Cross children were the first to show solidarity with that grieving family. They delayed their walk to the school for approximately 20 minutes; so that a prayer meeting could take place. They did not want to interfere with that. They then arranged an inter-denominational prayer with the Rev Norman Hamilton and others at the school. People need to know that there was understanding of the grief of that family.
I am against any sectarian attack on schools, children or the homes of anyone, be they Protestant, Catholic, any other denomination or none. It is wrong. I am against attacks on churches — and there have been many — as are Republicans. Dialogue did take place, but it did not work, and there was no conclusion. The dialogue lasted for approximately six weeks. Billy Hutchinson and I were there at the start of it in the Ardoyne, and we encouraged people to take part. A third party, Mediation Network, was then introduced, but the dialogue broke down. I will not talk about how it broke down. We were also involved with Loyalist politicians, trying to get fuller dialogue, because the Glenbryn residents said that nobody was listening to them. We tried to set up other dialogue, with representatives of the residents — as opposed to the parents — of the Ardoyne talking to the residents of Glenbryn in Belfast Castle. The venue was pipe bombed by the UDA.
Unionists make little reference to the fact that the UDA is deeply involved and is trying to wind things up with blast bomb and gun attacks. Frazer Agnew was more or less ranting that all the parents were Provos. I assume that that is his way of saying that they are all IRA members. That is an exceptionally, unbelievably dangerous attitude for him to take. That is the position of the UDA, and, under the name of the Red Hand Defenders, the UDA has made death threats against all the children and the parents. It is unacceptable for him to say such a thing in the Assembly. He should withdraw it because it turns people into targets. He is saying that they are all Republicans; they are not. It does not matter whether they are: they are parents trying to defend their children.
It may be of interest to Mr Agnew, who also accused the residents of Ardoyne and others of being involved in a type of ethnic cleansing, that if he reads the book ‘The UVF’ he will find that Glenbryn was a mixed area. The first threats, which were not from the UDA, in the late 1960s — when Rev Ian Paisley was at the peak of his young bigotry — were in the form of letters to Catholic houses in Glenbryn from the UVF, telling the occupants that they should leave the area. That was the intimidation then. We now have an entirely Protestant area, because Catholics were intimidated out of it. That should put the record straight.
Unionism is in denial. We went through the entire debate and did not deal with the UDA. People have said that the blockade is wrong — which is good — but Unionism is in denial about the political process. Unionists are trying to bring the institutions down, and now they are in denial about what everyone can see from their television screen is a blockade of a Catholic girls’ primary school. They must get real.
Nigel Dodds and Billy Hutchinson mentioned that only one school had been attacked. They said that if the problem really was bigotry, other schools could be attacked and blockaded. That is equivalent to a bully saying, "I beat up only one person. If I were really a bully, I would beat up three or four people." That is a ridiculous argument. When Danny Kennedy moved his amendment, I started to worry whether he thought that other schools in the area would be attacked. If so, that is also a dangerous situation.
Everyone has agreed that there should be dialogue. Everyone has agreed that children should not be stopped from going to school. If everyone in the Assembly is agreed on that, all parties should join together in support of this motion and make it difficult, if not impossible, for the people who are involved in the blockade to continue it. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 48; Noes 43
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre De Brun, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly supports the right to education of school children attending all schools throughout north Belfast.

Personal Statement

Mr Speaker: I have received a request from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, to make a personal statement.

Sir Reg Empey: In answer to an earlier question from the hon Member for North Antrim (Dr Paisley) about the opening of the Brussels Office, I said that invitations had been issued only to the Northern Ireland permanent secretaries. That was incorrect. I have subsequently discovered that a further six invitations were issued, including invitations to two European MEPs, a member of staff of a MEP and to two members of ECOSOC (European Parliament Economic and Social Committee). Therefore, I correct that answer. Invitations were not issued to the wider range of people who were likely to be invited. It is not uncommon for people’s diaries in Europe to be noted about forthcoming events, but Mr Mallon and I agreed that the opening should take place later this year.
I wanted to correct the statement that I made earlier, and I apologise for the factual error to you, Mr Speaker, and to the hon Member.

Mr Speaker: As is normal practice and as the Minister’s statement relates to a question raised by Dr Paisley, I call Dr Paisley.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I trust that at some later time he will tell the House how much money was spent on issuing the invitations and then cancelling all the arrangements.
The sitting was suspended at 2.28 pm.
On resuming —

First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Bloomfield Report

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Bloomfield Report.
(AQO19/01)


The Bloomfield Report made 20 recommendations — some generic and some specific. The devolved Administration and the Northern Ireland Office have responsibility for taking forward the recommendations in the devolved, reserved and excepted fields respectively. With regard to the generic recommendations, all Government Departments are represented on the interdepartmental working group set up to co-ordinate activity on victims’ issues. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has recently published a consultation paper on a cross-departmental strategy aimed at facilitating the co-ordination and improvement of the delivery of services. Health boards have established trauma advisory panels and issued directories of services; the criminal injuries compensation system has been reviewed; a trauma centre has been established; issues relating to the disappeared have been taken forward; and a memorial fund has been established to assist victims in a variety of ways.


It is unfortunate that the two junior Ministers with direct responsibility never seem able to come to the Assembly to answer for actions that, Members are told, are their responsibility.
Is the acting Deputy First Minister satisfied with the present level of communication with the Victims Liaison Unit of the Northern Ireland Office? As well as the cross-departmental strategy, the Programme for Government mentioned capacity building and victims’ groups, contact with victims’ groups, informing the community about the presence of the Victims Unit and assessing what improvements are needed. What further movements have taken place, given that those were all aims of the Programme for Government for this year?


I am sorry that the Member has to make do with Sir Reg Empey and myself in the absence of junior Ministers.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is responsible for all devolved matters, and the Northern Ireland Office is responsible for reserved and excepted matters. We appreciate that, sometimes, that is confusing, and an information leaflet was sent out at the end of January to victims’ groups, individual victims and the victims’ spokespersons of political parties. The leaflet set out the responsibilities of the respective units and the responsibilities of the devolved Government.
The exercise has produced positive feedback from a variety of groups and has been built on by the continuation of a rolling programme of visits to victims’ groups by the staff in the Victims Unit. The consultation process addresses the issue of what the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Office need to do to ensure that victims know which part of Government to deal with.

Executive Meeting

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the date of the next Executive meeting.
(AQO4/01)


The next meeting of the Executive will take place on Thursday 13 September 2001.


Will the acting First Minister assure the House that he will use the next meeting of the Executive to raise the objections to IRA/Sinn Féin’s continued presence in the Executive that many members of his party voiced during the summer recess during the Colombian episode? If so, and if he is genuinely concerned, will he sign the motion for the exclusion of Sinn Féin that the DUP has tabled and has left with the Business Office?


The hon Member will know that the Belfast Agreement put a series of obligations on parties that signed up to it. One of those obligations was that disarmament had to take place. That is long overdue. The Member will also know that under the rules, exclusions can be processed if there is cross-community support for them. I do not know what measures, other than tabling the motion, he has taken.
A few weeks ago, the Member said that he would not be part of any coalition that included any non-Unionist. I do not know whether his party shares that view, but I am conscious that any motion for exclusion requires cross-community support in the House. In 1998, the PrimeMinister made certain commitments, publicly and in writing, to our party and to the public in 1998. I look to him to honour his commitments.

Programme for Government

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail progress on the development of the latest Programme for Government and to indicate how it will differ from last year’s programme.
(AQO103/01)


Under the Belfast Agreement, we agreed that each year the Executive would agree and review, as necessary, a programme incorporating an agreed budget linked to the policies. That programme was scrutinised by Assembly Committees and approved by the Assembly. The process of reviewing and rolling forward the Programme for Government is under way.
An interdepartmental group representing Ministers met during the summer. It prepared a draft, which the Executive will consider this week. The drafting process has taken account of the comments made by Assembly Committees and others in response to the Executive’s position report on the Programme for Government and Budget.
The revised Programme for Government will focus on the 2002-03 financial year. We plan to present it to the Assembly in draft form, together with the draft Budget, in the week commencing 24 September 2001. The present consensus, as was clear from the comments made by Committees, is that the broad priorities endorsed by the Assembly in March remain valid. However, a year’s experience of administration may enable us to refine our analyses and strategic direction. We will also work to improve the public service agreements and to introduce new service delivery agreements.


Will the revised Programme for Government reinforce the fight against sectarianism, which is all too evident in our society and has been especially evident during the past week in Ardoyne?


We all deplore the situation at Holy Cross Primary School. We ask everyone connected with that dispute to take a step back and put the interests of the children first. We must build a process to secure a long-term resolution, and we are working to see how that can be achieved.
Children cannot be allowed to suffer the unacceptable intimidation and abuse that we have witnessed recently. Such sectarian strife, which places children at the forefront, is the road to disaster for all of us. The problem is not just north Belfast’s problem; it is a problem for all of us. Adults have failed the children by allowing it to happen. We must reflect carefully on how we can help to stop it now. The Executive have unanimously supported the efforts made locally to resolve those problems. We have worked closely with those trying to facilitate a resolution during the past few weeks, and we are continuing to do all that we can to make progress.
We will consider the first draft of the Programme for Government later this week, and we will consider carefully the proposals that it might include on measures to tackle the deep and painful divisions in our society. We expect that those proposals will reflect and build on the progress that has already been made.

Victims’ Strategy

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to comment on the review and changes to the delivery of front line services envisaged in the consultation paper on a victims’ strategy.
(AQO53/01)


The consultation paper on a victims’ strategy was issued on 7 August 2001, and the consultation period is due to last until 9 November 2001. Until the period of consultation has ended and all replies have been received and evaluated, it would not be appropriate to determine which services in the relevant Departments or agencies will need to be considered.
In implementing the strategy, the Executive will take appropriate steps to ensure that service delivery is improved. Not all the changes will require financial solutions, and in some cases a change to existing work practices may be all that is needed.


I thank the acting First Minister for his reply. He referred to the consultation paper on the victims’ strategy that was issued on 7 August. That paper said that 30 years of violence had left a devastating trail of victims with a wide range of symptoms and requirements. Can the acting First Minister give an indication about the adequacy of the funding? Will it be sufficient to address seriously and fundamentally the continuing trauma of those people?


Funding is one of the issues on which, I hope, we can find common cause. As I said, it is not always a matter of resources; it is, perhaps, a question of people altering their procedures and having an awareness of the requirements. There are funds available under the Peace II proposals. As the Member will know, there is £6·67 million provided in the peace and reconciliation funding. We are also negotiating with the Northern Ireland Office about a sum of money in its budget that could be the subject of a transfer to our budget. That is an ongoing negotiation. The combination of those two aspects, along with the responses that we hope to receive in the consultation exercise, will provide us with a more effective delivery of service.

Disability Rights Task Force

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on consultations it has had to advance the work of the disability rights task force.
(AQO104/01)


The Executive are committed to ensuring that disabled people have comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. The Programme for Government includes a number of initiatives and actions which will honour that commitment, including additional places on the access to work scheme and an increase in the number of adaptations to existing homes to make them more accessible for disabled people. Our consultation paper on the Northern Ireland Executive’s detailed response to the recommendations in the disability rights task force report ‘From Exclusion to Inclusion’, apart from those concerning education, will be issued shortly. The disability rights task force set us a challenging agenda, and we believe its impressive report will play an important role in achieving equality of opportunity for disabled people in Northern Ireland.


I welcome the acting Deputy First Minister’s comments that it is a matter of enforceable civil rights for disabled people. I also welcome his commitment to the forthcoming consultation paper. Will we proceed to legislation as soon as possible? That has already been done in Britain, with the introduction of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.


The Member makes a good point. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which takes forward the disability rights task force recommendations on education in Britain, received Royal Assent in May. Responsibility for taking forward the recommendations in Northern Ireland rests with the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning, and both Ministers have stated their commitment to introducing legislation. I understand that it is intended to issue a consultative document later this year about what should go into the Northern Ireland legislation.

Visit of Ambassador Haass

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to state what plans have been made to meet United States Ambassador Haass during his visit to Belfast this week.
(AQO82/01)


We can confirm that Ambassador Haass is due in Belfast on a two-day visit beginning tomorrow. His itinerary includes meetings with representatives from several of the main political parties, as well as a range of other engagements. Mr Mallon and myself expect to be present at separate meetings with the ambassador during the course of his visit.


Mr Haass today said that he was deeply disturbed over the arrests of the Republicans in Colombia, a country in which there are hundreds of American citizens and in which America spends billions of dollars.
Will the acting First Minister encourage the United States Government to take action against Sinn Féin in the USA if the case that the three Sinn Féin members were involved in training activity with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Colombia is proven?


We all accept that the arrests introduce a deeply disturbing dimension to the situation. We talked earlier about three-, four- and five- year-old children having access to schools, which I support. However, we must remember that FARC kidnaps five-year-old children and holds them for six months. An American child was released only after police action.
We must also remember that those people make their living from pedalling death to young people in America and Europe through narcotics. Action has allegedly been taken by certain paramilitary organisations in our society against people who pedal drugs. Therefore, I cannot understand how others can consort with an organisation that makes its living from selling drugs and narcotics and from kidnapping young people. As a result, a huge problem has arisen. It is interesting to note that some Members who are normally so vocal have been silent about this.


The activities of the child- kidnapping, drug-running, anti-United States terrorists, who have been found in Colombia recently, alarm the people of the Province. At his meeting with Ambassador RichardN. Haass, will the acting First Minister urge the Ambassador to ensure that the UnitedStates Government will take action now to close the fund-raising door that is open to IRA/Sinn Féin?


I said that Ambassador Haass would be meeting party representatives. I hope to be one of those representatives. I have already made personal representations to him along those lines. I have no difficulty in repeating them, because FARC is a dangerous organisation. It poses a threat not only to American activities in Colombia, but to western Europe and the United States through the pedalling of poison, which is primarily aimed at young people. FARC is an unsavoury organisation. There is no way that any involvement with it can be swept under the carpet. The American Administration are genuinely shocked, and there may be congressional hearings. Some of my Colleagues will take the opportunity to draw those matters to the attention of the American legislators this week.

Decommissioning

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what reports have been received and whether consultations have taken place between them and Her Majesty’s Government on the issue of decommissioning.
(AQO122/01)


I thank the Member for his question and for the little bit of nostalgia that accompanies it; it will, no doubt, develop into neuralgia before the question is over. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) has reported to the British and Irish Governments five times this year, and those reports have been published. The latest report was dated 6August2001. We have not jointly consulted the British Government on the issue of decommissioning. However, our respective parties have met the British Government separately to discuss the matter.


The Minister will recall that, back in those happy days when we were participating in office together, we were severally consulted by the Government from time to time on the issue. It would be valuable if it could be confirmed that, in the run-up to August this year, we were told that both the British and Irish Governments had made it clear to the Republican movement that the actual fulfilment of its obligations — the commencement of actual decommissioning — was necessary and that engagement with the IICD and agreement on modalities — welcome though that would be — would not be sufficient by themselves.
Will the acting Deputy First Minister join me in appealing — even if it is to remarkably empty Benches — to the representatives of the Republican movement to ensure that their obligations are discharged in the course of the next few weeks and that they do not put the continued operation of the Assembly in peril?


The Member will be aware that all participants in the Good Friday Agreement have agreed that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) has responsibility for achieving the decommissioning element of the Good Friday Agreement. The commission can achieve that objective only by working with all paramilitary groups, and I call on all groups to engage intensively with the commission without further delay. The latest IICD report reflected progress in respect of IRA weaponry, and it was deeply unhelpful that that progress was overtaken by that group’s withdrawal from contact with the IICD.
I agree with the statement that was made subsequent to that by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in which he anticipated the type of action that would deal with the issue, following the undertaking given to the IICD. Unfortunately, that action has not taken place, but the will of the people is that the matter be dealt with once and for all and in such a way that it will no longer damage the political process.
Alongside the resolution of decommissioning, we must also make progress on policing, the operation of the institutions and normalisation if we are to resolve all the difficulties facing the political process.


Does the acting Deputy First Minister not think it strange that, when the former First Minister was asked that question in this House, he hedged? Now he asks the same question. That is an interesting situation. When the Democratic Unionist Party met Gen de Chastelain, he said that the talks had not been called off and that the IRA had said that it had withdrawn its offer but had not ceased to keep the link. Why is he telling us the opposite today?


I note the Member’s remark about the gamekeeper-turned-poacher. It is a strange situation, not without its piquancy.
I cannot answer for the independent commission about discussions that the Member and his party might have had. Broadly, the issue has had a festering effect on the political process. It has damaged it and has led to the type of suspicion and antagonism that we saw only too vividly last week. The issue must now, surely, be dealt with once and for all.


Does the acting Deputy First Minister share my frustration and disappointment that the latest IICD report was withdrawn in days? Will he, on behalf of all the people in Ireland who supported the Good Friday Agreement, urge the IRA forthwith to reinstate its offer to IICD?


I fully agree with the Member’s comments. Decommissioning is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement and must be addressed if we are to overcome our current difficulties. I have no hesitation about asking the IRA to deal with the issue in a way that will allow the full political potential of the Good Friday Agreement to be realised.

Programme for Government: Economic Issues

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in view of the more difficult economic climate predicted for the year ahead, to indicate how the revised Programme for Government will address the issue.
(AQO101/01)


With the priority of securing a competitive economy, the Executive have agreed an important set of measures that will provide the infrastructure and environment for economic growth. Simultaneously, we have placed strong emphasis on ensuring that we have the skills needed for a modern economy, through investment in education and skills.
The revised Programme for Government continues to refine those priorities and seeks to develop our programmes. That will create a stronger economy so that we may provide appropriate support to those affected by the downturn in the global economy and respond to changing economic circumstances.


Although I welcome the acting First Minister’s assurance that support for those affected by the downturn will be forthcoming, does he recognise that the downturn is already being felt in the north-west through, for example, the loss of jobs at Calcast Ltd in Campsie last week? A comprehensive package of measures, including the provision of gas to the north-west, is required.


It should never be said that an opportunity to get that one in was wasted. The Member will be aware that Colleagues in the Executive are discussing the provision of gas beyond Greater Belfast, and we hope to determine our policy on that soon.
There has been a history of difficulties with Calcast Ltd. Its current parent company undertook an investment programme that resulted in the provision of new machinery and production lines, and that has led to some job losses.
The economy changes all the time. Our job is to ensure that we have the best skills and infrastructure possible, to ensure that our companies remain competitive in world markets. As the Member knows, I am frequently in the north-west and in her city. I take a keen interest in the economy of that part of the Province, and I assure her that my departmental agencies are doing all that they can in co-operation with local authorities and other organisations in the area to create the best possible opportunities for job growth.

Colombian Terrorists/Irish Republicans

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail if it has had any contact with the Administration of President Bush in respect of the apparent involvement of Irish Republicans with Colombian terrorists and, if so, have these contacts suggested that the President shares with me a sense of disappointment at this apparent involvement.
(AQO85/01)


I have been informed that there has been contact between the acting First Minister's office and the United States Administration on that matter. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has ongoing contact with President Bush’s Administration on a range of issues pertaining to political developments here.


Does the acting Deputy First Minister have any information on when the United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee will hold hearings in Washington? Will the Executive send representatives to those hearings?


I understand that no decision has been taken on whether the United States Congress International Relations Committee will hold hearings into the recent arrests in Colombia. Until that matter is decided on by that body, it would be impossible for the Executive to form a proper opinion on the second part of the question.


Does the acting Deputy First Minister intend to impress upon President Bush’s Administration the depth of the concerns of people in the Province? Will he seek an assurance that specific action will be taken against IRA/Sinn Féin in all its activities in the USA, whether they be fund-raising or public relations? Moreover, will he press for strict passport controls?


As the acting First Minister said earlier, Ambassador Haass will be in Northern Ireland later this week. I assume that political parties will meet him.
I have no doubt that points about the arrests in Colombia will be made in the meetings with political parties.


Our time is up for questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker.


We do not take points of order during Question Time, but we will happily take them at the end. I will ask my Colleague who is taking over from me to note that.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Regional Development
Craigavon Bridge

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the total cost of upgrading Craigavon Bridge in Londonderry and what problems have been identified with the upgrading.
(AQO57/01)


Roads Service officials have advised me that the total cost of refurbishing Craigavon Bridge in Londonderry will be £4·2 million. The work is being undertaken in three phases. Phases one and two involved the refurbishment of the upper and lower decks of the bridge at a cost of £1 million each. Phase three will involve the painting of the whole structure at a cost of £2·2 million. Phases one and two have been completed; phase three has just started and will be completed by the end of summer 2002. Some aspects of the resurfacing work that were carried out on the upper deck as part —[Interruption].


Whoever’s mobile phone is ringing should get out —[Interruption]. The law treats everyone equally.


Some aspects of the resurfacing work that was carried out on the upper deck as part of phase one did not meet the required standard. Officials, therefore, instructed the consultant and the contractor to undertake remedial work. This work was substantially completed on 2 September.


I welcome the Minister’s detailed statement. However, as he is a public representative for Londonderry, he will be aware of the high level of congestion that the work caused for many who live in the city. The work particularly affected those who live on the east bank of the river. As we move into the third phase of the scheme, can the Minister assure us that we will be able to seriously address some of the traffic problems caused by the scheme while the main work was being done? That is very important. Most of the public representatives across the city received major complaints about the traffic congestion that this scheme caused.


I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I appreciate the disruption that was caused. I suspect that most Ministers who live close to works that cause disruption are lobbied on such matters, and I was not an exception. I am acutely aware of the problems that were encountered last weekend. During the first 10 weeks of the painting contract that constitutes phase three, minor lane restrictions will be in operation along the lower deck of the bridge. After that period, no further lane restrictions on Craigavon Bridge are envisaged, and I hope that that will be the case.


I also welcome the Minister’s response, and I agree that work has been an ongoing problem. Did the initial problem result from the original design or did the work have to be redone because of the way in which it had originally been carried out?


There was a change in the specification of the original work, and as a result the costs of the works that were carried out — the works in relation to the change in specification that caused the problem — were borne entirely by the contractor and the design consultant who were responsible for the specification in the first instance.
When the problem arose — and we were aware of it some months ago — Roads Service took the opportunity to do some additional works of its own that it would have had to carry out in any case. Roads Service paid for that work, but the cost of the work caused as a result of the specification change was entirely borne by the contractor and the consultant.

Department for Regional Development: Decentralising of Functions

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail those plans that have been initiated to decentralise functions within his Department.
(AQO63/01)


At present three quarters of my Department’s staff are located outside the Greater Belfast area. Staff are employed at 74 locations across Northern Ireland. Although I have no plans for further decentralisation I will continue to ensure that my Department’s staff and functions are located where maximum efficiency in the delivery of services to all people in Northern Ireland can be provided.


Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I want to see an increasing dividend in the matter of decentralisation. There is a growing focus on decentralisation within the Civil Service, and a conference will be held in the second half of October on that very matter.
With regard to decentralisation, I would like the west of the Bann to be viewed positively. I understand — and I can be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong — that the Department for Regional Development undertakes some of its administration for the Six Counties in Enniskillen, not least the processing of discs for disabled parking.


By their very nature the services delivered by my Department are highly decentralised. A cursory examination, for example, of the four client divisional headquarters of Roads Service are ample testimony to that. They are located in Belfast, Omagh, Coleraine and Craigavon. The north, south, east and west are covered so we are already fairly decentralised.
There are a significant number of industrial employees in Northern Ireland. However, I will continue to examine ways of ensuring that decentralisation is ongoing. We aim to achieve maximum effectiveness in delivery of the service and will continue to do so.


I thank the Minister for the answer he gave to the original question. I welcome the fact that there are 74 locations for members of staff to work in. Can the Minister assure the House that these offices, services and staff will not be removed from the east of the Province, outside of Belfast, as dictated by Sinn Féin/IRA? He knows that the vast majority of the population of Northern Ireland lives in the east of the Province and therefore should have jobs, services and facilities available to them. Does he agree that to take jobs from the east, simply to give them to the west, would create a false economy and is not a realistic approach to the problem of trying to bring new jobs to disadvantaged areas?


I am more than happy to confirm that the effective delivery of services will be the most important criterion in determining where those services are best delivered from and to. It is the case that the delivery of services across Northern Ireland has been adequate.
I will go so far as to say that that will continue to be the case without major change. If I were convinced that any elements within the Department for Regional Development were not already decentralised, I might be persuaded. However, given that we are effectively decentralised, I do not see a compelling case for further action on this.

Newry Rail Terminus

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what progress has been made towards securing a new passenger rail terminus in Newry.
(AQO39/01)


The Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHCo) and Translink have wanted to construct a new railway station in Newry for some considerable time. They have had regular dialogue with local council representatives on the matter. However the transport companies have experienced some difficulties in gaining access to their first choice of site, which is directly opposite the site of the present station. Consequently, several other site options have been considered including a site on land near the Cloghogue roundabout. There are certain constraints with this alternative site, such as limited space and distance from the town, making it less attractive as a potential solution. Officials in NITHCo and Translink will continue to investigate how best to provide a new railway station for Newry.
While I am keen to enhance the provision of public transport throughout Northern Ireland, and recent developments have shown that to be the case, I must point out that notwithstanding any agreement on site location, any scheme to provide a new railway station in Newry would have to compete for resources with many other pressing transport needs. As well as resolving the difficulties of location, the provision of a new station therefore depends on the Assembly’s allocating sufficient resources to public transport.


I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that there is a certain frustration in places such as Newry? They have seen resources put into all the other major train stations such as those in Belfast, Portadown, Dundalk, Drogheda and Dublin, and they are still suffering with temporary accommodation.
Can the Minister ensure that any consideration of a new station for Newry will include provision for park- and-ride facilities, free transport to the town centre, which exists in other towns, and will also include some revision of the timetable so that there are friendly train times for workers and students who commute every day to Belfast and Dublin?


The Member has raised a number of issues. If we had overcome the hurdles of location and the desirability of the most preferred location, we would be able to try to get the best possible station with the facilities that the Member has requested. Unfortunately we are not yet at that point.
I will undertake to ensure that NITHCo and Translink are reminded of the issues that the Member has raised in his question and in correspondence. I will remind them of the need not only to press ahead with all speed with the provision of a new station, if possible, but to take on board the other points the Member raised regarding facilities.


I welcome the Minister’s reply. However, does he not accept that the existing considerations have all been rather ad hoc on the part of the holding company? Will he undertake to initiate a formal study considering all possible venues for any new station and give detailed costings?


I am to have discussions with senior officials in the transport holding company, and I undertake to ensure that this matter and the accompanying issues that Mr Kennedy and Mr Fee have raised with me today and that affect the people of Newry and the surrounding area are included in those discussions.

Knockmore Railway Line

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will make a statement on the consultation process on the closure of the Knockmore railway line.
(AQO27/01)


The Assembly Budget of 18 December 2000 did not provide sufficient resources for the retention of services on the Antrim to Knockmore line. Consequently, Northern Ireland Railways had to initiate the statutory consultation procedures to discontinue services on the line in accordance with section 60 of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
More than 1,000 letters of objection to the proposal were received during the statutory process. Three cases indicated genuine hardship that could not be alleviated by the proposed substitute bus service. Subsequently I commissioned an equality impact assessment on the discontinuation of services on the line. A consultation paper was issued on 31 August to a large range of consultees. The consultation process will remain open for a period of 12 weeks and will close on 23 November.


Can the Minister confirm that the 1,000 letters that were received — from groups such as the Crumlin Community Group, the Upper Ballinderry Group, Crumlin High School and St Joseph’s Primary School, Crumlin — demonstrated a high degree of individual hardship, community hardship and social deprivation? Will he agree that a bus substitution scheme will not adequately deal with the general feeling of deprivation that will be brought about by the closure of the scheme? Will the Minister join with me in saying that it should remain open?


I readily join with the Member in concurring that there were a substantial number of replies. Unfortunately I am faced with a resource problem. I have been, and I am, concerned about trying to keep the line open. I ensured that a limited service would remain open in order to bridge the time until closure was likely. I also introduced free fares for the elderly in order to give more people an opportunity to use the line so that we could reassess the issue.
However, none of those things deals with the fact that the resources required to keep the line open are simply not available, and that leaves me in a difficult position. I am doing what I can to ensure that the line remains open and I will make additional bids for resources in order to ensure that it stays open. If that attempt fails, the Assembly will have to vote on whether to retain the line and the existing resources or to sanction closure.


I thank the Minister for the reply to the question. More importantly, I welcome the recent issue of a consultation document on the matter, as it affects my constituents in South Antrim. Will the Minister consider my suggestion that he, as part of the consultation process, make himself available for a meeting? The Member representing Lagan Valley (Mr Close) and I will not disagree about the location, since our two constituencies are directly concerned. Will the Minister meet people who are directly involved in the campaign to keep the line open and hear their concerns?


I went on site the day I announced the extension of the service for approximately 12 months. I would have no difficulty in going back on site again. However, I will leave it for Members to decide the most appropriate location. I would prefer to do so once we have reached the conclusion of the consultation exercise, which has just opened in the past week. It would be improper for me to go along at this point.


Many people will appreciate the Minister’s intervention in the issue. The Minister must know that the railway service in Northern Ireland has issued glossy brochures which have highlighted and gloried in the continuation of railway services, especially identifying the Belfast circle line, which takes in Belfast, Lisburn, and Antrim. Surely it is insufficient to have glossy brochures glorying in this if the service were to be removed. The Assembly must take the bull by the horns and allow the money to be allocated to ensure that this service is retained.


I have received extensive lobbying on the issue from a range of public representatives, including the hon Member Dr McCrea, who led delegations, lobbied, campaigned and asked me to go on site, as did others. I am exercised about the issue, but none of this delivers the additional resources to me. I am conscious of the need to respond positively. I want to do so, and I can simply concur with the hon Member’s comments and look forward to the unanimous support of the House when I ask for the money to carry out their wishes.

North Down Sewage Works

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the current position in regard to the north Down sewage works; and to make a statement.
(AQO98/01)


A new waste water treatment works, estimated to cost £35 million, is planned to serve the Bangor, Donaghadee and Millisle areas. Two sites have been shortlisted. I have set up a working party comprising representatives of North Down Borough Council and Ards Borough Council to review the suitability of the criteria and processes used in site selection. The first meeting of the working party was held on 10 August, and further meetings are proposed. I hope that the review can be completed in the next few months and a consensus reached between the councils and the Department. That being the case, it would enable a decision to be made on the site for the proposed new works very early in the new year.


I congratulate the Minister on the work that he has done on this matter. As you know, it has been going on for some years, and I am glad to hear that there has been some progress. Will the Minister issue a progress statement to the concerned residents at the two sites? They have been waiting four to five years to find out exactly what is happening. A progress statement from the Minister would be useful.


I would be happy to consider issuing a progress statement to the residents. I remind the House of the difficulties involved in this complex arena. I was at a meeting of Ards Borough Council on this issue some time ago. Most visits to councils that I undertake involve a range of opinions on a variety of topics. On that particular day, there was one opinion on that topic. The division that the location of the waste water treatment works has caused has been part of the problem in being unable to come to a conclusion.
That was the reason for my establishment of the working party. Obviously I will want to see consensus emerging, and I hope that it will. I will discuss the matter with my officials after the next meeting, and that should occur very shortly. At that point I will be happy to consider an up-to-date statement so that everyone will know exactly where we are and how long it will be before we reach the likely conclusion.


The Minister has touched on it, but my question is a follow-through from the water treatment works itself. Does the Minister agree that the best site for such a water treatment works would be in north Down, and that it would be the most cost-effective option? How will he ensure that the strong opinion of Ards Borough Council and all its residents will be upheld?


I genuinely thank the Member for reinforcing the difficulty that this problem has brought about from day one. Any humour aside, we had, not precisely the same problem, but a similar problem, in Omagh, where there was a dispute and difference about the location of a waste water treatment works. I was reluctant to simply proceed to one site in the face of opposition from some residents. We managed, through a protracted series of meetings, to get broad consensus. I do not think that it is possible in these situations to ever get 100%, but we got very close to it in Omagh. I hope that we can do the same with this plant. The hon Member will understand if I decline his request to state emphatically where the waste water treatment works should be in advance of the working party reporting.


Driving past the north Down sewage works at Holywood last night, I noticed that the site is still giving off its less-than-fragrant whiff. What is the current position there, and when will the new works be accepted into service and be fully active so that the people of Holywood can have some respite?


The hon Member will appreciate that not having had advance notification of the question, I do not have a ready-made response. I will ensure that he is written to as a matter of urgency.

Strangford Ferry: Free Travel for Senior Citizens

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he has any plans to introduce free passage for senior citizens using the Portaferry/Strangford ferry.
(AQO22/01)


13. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what steps will be taken to introduce free travel for senior citizens on the Strangford ferry service; and to make a statement.
(AQO51/01)


18. asked the Minister for Regional Development to make it his policy to extend his free fares for the elderly scheme to the Strangford ferry; and to make a statement.
(AQO58/01)


I will take questions 6, 13 and 18 together, as they all relate to the same issue.
I am very sympathetic to the proposals contained in the questions posed by Mr McCarthy, Mr McGrady, and Mrs Iris Robinson. As part of the Roads Service’s review of fares for the ferry service, I will be considering the feasibility of extending the arrangement of free travel for senior citizens on public transport to include those travelling as foot passengers or passengers in cars on the ferry. I will make a further statement on this matter when the review of fares has been completed.


I am very disappointed at the response, in view of the fact that this should have been included in the free transport for all senior citizens. Furthermore, great concerns are now being expressed by the workforce of that ferry service about the threat to jobs and conditions should it be taken over by the private sector. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that the Department’s staff on the ferry service will not be sacrificed simply for the dogma of privatisation?


I am surprised that the Member is disappointed that I will consider the feasibility of extending the arrangement of free travel, which is what he asked me to do. I am surprised that he is disappointed that I have agreed, not only with what Mr McCarthy has asked for, but also with what Mr McGrady has written to me about and with what Mrs Robinson wrote to me and came to see me about. I am surprised that that is the case.
I will consider that feasibility. When the review of fares has been completed I will want to make an announcement. I do not want to pre-empt that review. As for the possibility of the ferry going into the private sector, I am the Minister for Regional Development and I have no knowledge of any such acquisition.

Environment

I wish to advise Members that question 13, in the name of Mr Sammy Wilson, has been transferred to the Minister for Regional Development, and will receive a written answer. Question 17, in the name of Mrs Carmel Hanna, has been withdrawn.

Malone Conservation Area

1. asked the Minister of the Environment to comment on the success or otherwise of the Malone conservation area in south Belfast; and to make a statement.
(AQO76/01)


The Malone conservation area was established in August 2000 in recognition of the area’s special townscape merits. Planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage’, sets out my Department’s planning policies for the control of development in conservation areas.
Designation as a conservation area introduces control over the demolition of unlisted buildings in the area. Anyone wishing to demolish a building must first apply to my Department for conservation area consent. It is a criminal offence to carry out such work without consent. Designation as a conservation area also brings with it a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area.
Since designation, this has been the prime consideration for my Department in assessing the acceptability of development proposals in the Malone area. Recent decisions by the Planning Appeals Commission have endorsed the Department’s approach and recognised the significance of the conservation area designation in considering development proposals.
Designation of the Malone area has therefore increased the weight attached to conservation of the built heritage in the area. It has also addressed local concerns, expressed prior to designation, regarding the level of uncontrolled demolition. Judged on these terms, I consider at this early stage that the designation has been beneficial in helping to conserve the built heritage of the area.


I know that it is early days, and current information may indicate that it has been beneficial, but I put it to the Minister that there is still a fair amount of raping and pillaging of south Belfast in the developmental sense. Quite a lot of the development is fairly ruthless and tasteless, in its own way.
Is the Minister aware of the deep concerns in the Cleaver area about the plans to destroy 94 Malone Road? How they intend dislodging number 94 from number 96, which is closely attached to it, I do not know. Both are buildings of considerable merit; one is to be replaced with 14 or 16 town houses. The people who live there are not totally against reasonable development, but they are deeply concerned because an adjacent site at 102 Malone Road has approval for what they consider to be reasonably acceptable development. That development has been reviewed, and planning permission has had to be sought again. Is the Minister aware of the serious concern that while the conservation area designation has done a bit, it has not done enough, and is not strong enough against difficult developments?


Many applications for development within the Malone area are currently being assessed. Many of these may be viewed as controversial to some extent because this is a highly desirable residential area in which both the existing residents and developers have a keen interest. In June 2001 the Planning Service received applications for the demolition of the Ulster Teacher’s Union building at the junction of Cleaver Park, 94 Malone Road, and the erection of 15 apartments in two blocks linked by a stairwell and overpass, and an associated application for consent to demolish an existing building within the conservation area. There is another application in that area, and these applications are at an early stage in the planning process.
Consultation responses have not been received and the time period for public comment has not yet expired. As one of the applications relates to a listed building consent, the views of the Environment and Heritage Service will be fundamental to the determination of the applications. Opinions, of course, will be placed before Belfast City Council for consultation before any decisions later this year.


Many South Belfast constituents have greatly welcomed the Minister’s initiative in introducing the conservation area, but I suppose the implication of Dr McDonnell’s question is the problem of houses immediately beyond the boundary as well. Redevelopment has typically involved the replacement of large Edwardian or Victorian family dwellings with large numbers of flats and apartments, with implications of greater car ownership and traffic in the area. Does the Minister therefore accept that in the future the closest possible collaboration between the Planning Service and the Roads Service must be exercised in making decisions about what is sustainable new housing development within that broad area?


We work in conjunction insofar as any application is concerned. Consideration is given and consultation undertaken, and no planning exercise is taken lightly. Planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage’ sets out my Department’s current planning policies for the control of development in conservation areas. There is a presumption in favour of retaining any building which makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area, while new development proposals should respect townscape and retain the overall integrity of the area. As Members may be aware, work has recently commenced on the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. This will consider the need for specific planning policies for the conservation areas in the plan area, including the Malone area.

Giant’s Causeway: Planning Procedures

2. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the planning procedures used by his Department in the application at Giant’s Causeway known as the Nook.
(AQO5/01)


My Department received two planning applications and two related applications for listed building consent for a dwelling at 48 Causeway Road, Bushmills, on 4 May 2001. The dwelling, which is a listed building, is referred to locally as the Nook. These four applications were for two alternative proposals. One involved a change of use of the existing building with minimal modifications to its fabric and structure. The other changed the use of the building and proposed a substantial side extension which almost doubled the floor area of the existing building. The applications were advertised, neighbours were notified in the usual manner and appropriate consultations were carried out.
The applications were appraised with regard to all relevant development plans and policy documents including planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning Archaeology and the Built Heritage’, planning policy 1, ‘General Principles: A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland’ the North East Area Plan. Given the location of the development proposal and the issues raised with me in the course of considering the planning applications, I took a close interest in their consideration and made the final decision myself.
As a result, I determined that the application should be approved, and my Department issued approvals, both for a full planning and listed building consent on Friday 10 August 2001. I am satisfied that the applications were processed consistent with all standard procedures, that all the necessary consultations were carried out and that the advice of consultees was considered and taken into account.
All objections and representations were fully considered. The proposals were thoroughly appraised with regard to all development plan and policy documents, and all relevant material considerations were properly assessed.


Does the Minister agree that the intention expressed by the National Trust in its autumn/ winter magazine to seek a judicial review of the Department of the Environment’s policy on this matter and on the application is a waste of National Trust resources, given the procedures that the Minister has so carefully outlined to the House? Will the Minister assure the House that in all future applications at the Giant’s Causeway, the Department of the Environment will not become the "meat in the sandwich" of a commercial bidding war for valuable sites in that area?


The Department of the Environment takes objective decisions on all such applications. I understand that the National Trust has publicly stated that it will seek a judicial review of my decision. However, it has not yet sought leave of the courts to do so. In the circumstances, Members will understand that I do not wish to comment further on this matter.


The Minister will be aware that such are the feelings about the application, as evidenced by the judicial review threat, that several concerned parties are considering taking this matter further under the human rights legislation, as the current legislation does not provide for third-party appeals and is a violation of their human rights.


What is your question?


It is not repetitive, unlike some. Has the Minister or the Department of the Environment sought legal advice on whether the current legislation for planning appeals, which does not provide for third- party appeals, is in contravention of the human rights legislation?


With regard to third-party appeals, I understand from the Alconbury case in England that the planning authority was not against human rights issues. However, that has not yet been proven.
In determining the applications I satisfied myself of the scale, character and detailed design and layout of the proposed development; and that the topography of the surrounding area and the character of the site and its curtilage were such that the proposals could be satisfactorily integrated into their surroundings without having a detrimental impact on the Giant’s Causeway or its setting.
I also satisfied myself that the whole development — including the proposed extension — would be in keeping with the existing building and the surrounding area; and that the proposed change of use would secure the upkeep and survival of this important listed building and would preserve its character and architecture for historic interest.
The decision has been made. The Department may be subject to a judicial review, and if that happens, so be it.


I asked whether the Minister had sought any advice —


Mr McCartney, you have asked your question.

Mournes National Park

3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what progress has been made towards the designation of the Mournes as a national park; and to make a statement.
(AQO49/01)


My officials have prepared a report on national parks and on areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). The issues covered, including the involvement of local communities and the need to resource any management bodies, are complex and require careful consideration. I am considering the report and I will be sending it to the Committee for the Environment soon. I look forward to receiving its views and I will issue a statement on the way forward when I have the benefit of those views.
In view of the proposals under consideration I have no plans at present to designate a national park in the Mournes. However, the Mournes will continue to benefit from the protection given by their status as an area of outstanding natural beauty.


As the Minister knows, the Mournes were designated an area of outstanding natural beauty many years ago. That is not the problem. The problem is that the demands of farmers, fishermen, small industries, commercial enterprises, rural dwellers, day trippers and full-time tourists are having an enormous impact on the Mournes, and if we get peace the problem will be exacerbated.
Does the Minister agree that it is unnecessary to fulfil a programme of other areas of outstanding natural beauty before addressing the issue of creating a new, unique- to-Northern Ireland type of national park to which the Mourne Heritage Trust is already committed as representative of these dimensions? Can he not progress the matter further and more quickly? As time goes on the damage is being done.


I can understand Mr McGrady’s annoyance. He has pursued this issue several times and it is not an easy one to resolve. I hope to make an announcement on the way forward before the end of the year.
Careful consideration needs to be given to what type of park might be established here, and what its practical implications might be. We are not taking about publicly- owned land nor vast areas of remote countryside so careful consideration needs to be given to the administration of any proposed park and the relationships with any existing or future local government structures.


Regarding the request of the Member for South Down (Mr McGrady) for the designation of the Mournes as a national park, would the Minister agree that a Province-wide study should be carried out with the aim of determining whether several areas should be designated as national parks? In addition, would he consider the need for an impartial advisory committee, representing a wide range of interested groups, to oversee the project?


We have beautiful countryside throughout Northern Ireland, but I do not think that it would be feasible to designate all parts of Northern Ireland as a national park. There are areas of outstanding natural beauty, which have been recognised. However, in some parts of the Province people object to areas of outstanding natural beauty being designated. The fear is that there may be further planning obstacles when these people make planning applications. However, I can assure the Member that these issues do not go unrecognised, and they will be pursued in the course of time.


In relation to the Mournes, would the Minister agree that the great concern of a number of local people is that planning permissions are still being given — in this area of natural beauty — and that there is no third-party appeal system to allow people to have their human rights upheld?
Will the Minister answer the question asked by the honourable and learned gentleman for North Down, Mr McCartney? Will he confirm that his Department received legal advice that indicated that, as things stand, his Department does not have the necessary procedures in place to successfully stave off any challenge that would be made under the human rights legislation?


My Department pursues all areas before it approves or refuses an application. The matter of third-party appeals is a difficult one. We have discussed it. At the present time, to introduce third-party appeals would prolong the situation within the planning system. Quite often we are knocked for having such a long planning approval process. The situation — and I think it was Alconbury that the Member referred to — is that it has not been found that the planning system was against —[Interruption].


This is a different issue.


This is not a different issue, Mr McCartney.


I have read that case very closely.


As it is understood by the Department and myself, what we are doing insofar as planning is concerned, and without the present third-party appeals, is well within human rights legislation and is acceptable.

Road Safety

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads for the first six months of this year and to indicate if projected road safety targets are expected to be met for 2001.
(AQO109/01)


There were 67 people killed and 789 people seriously injured on Northern Ireland’s roads between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2001. During the same period last year 81 people died and 826 were seriously injured. Provisional figures indicate that by 9 September 2001, 96 people had died compared with 109 by the same date last year. Figures for serious injuries after June 2001 are not yet available.
While I welcome the lower number of serious road casualties so far, it is not possible to predict what the final outcome will be for the full year.
I sincerely hope that the level of road casualties will continue to decline, and I urge all road users to contribute to that by behaving responsibly on our roads at all times.


I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the reduction in casualties. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the professionalism of their current television advertising campaign relating to road safety issues. Can the Minister assure the House that the campaign will be closely monitored for impact, and intensified if necessary? Will the Minister ensure that the message about death and injury on our roads is transmitted by all relevant means and targeted at young people in the hope that Northern Ireland will cease to be a place where so many young road users regularly lose their lives in accidents that are totally avoidable?


This is one of the issues that my Department and I take very personally. Road safety is a big issue and we will pursue it as far as we possibly can. I can assure the Member and the House that we will go to whatever lengths we can, within the system, to ensure that road tragedy eases considerably. We would love to see it cease completely, but it is no use pretending that that is possible.
The Department of the Environment focuses many of its publicity and education efforts on young drivers. In the United Kingdom the 17-to-24 age group represents 11% of driving licence holders but is involved in 25% of fatal and serious injury collisions. The 17-to-20 age group is 10 times more likely to be killed in a road crash than 35 to 54-year-olds. Sadly, it seems that young men are the main offenders when it comes to excessive speeding, drinking and driving, and failure to wear seat belts. While recent campaigns target young men in particular, the message I want to get through is equally relevant to other road users, young and old, male and female.


Does the Minister agree that road safety issues are often raised when people make objections to planning applications? These objectors often feel that their right of appeal has been withheld because of the current planning laws. I give the Minister his third opportunity of the day to tell the House whether or not his Department has received legal opinion that indicates that, given the current absence of third-party planning appeals, the Minister is not complying with human rights legislation.


That question is not relevant and the Minister may prefer not to answer it.


There seems to be an element of doubt and concern in three recent references to me in relation to our legal standing. In order to clarify the matter, I will ensure that the three Members concerned receive a written answer from my Department.

Regional Seas Pilot Scheme

5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what action he is taking following Her Majesty’s Government’s initiative to develop a strategy for the conservation, protection and management of nationally important marine wildlife through a regional seas pilot scheme.
(AQO96/01)


It is widely accepted that current practice for managing the marine environment in the European Union is unsustainable. An alternative approach was put forward in the recent review of marine nature conservation issued by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Rather than apply uniform policies throughout EU waters, this regional seas approach would operate within defined and reasonably uniform areas. Its purpose would be to address the results of each of the activities affecting the marine ecosystem and develop tailored management regimes. My Department is co-operating with the Countryside Council for Wales on the potential of this approach and the sustainable management of fisheries in the Irish Sea. It is also considering an approach from England’s North West Coastal Forum to explore other aspects of regional seas management using the Irish Sea as a pilot area. Both studies will address wildlife issues.


Can the Minister say whether the review of marine nature conservation (RMNC) has considered the draft specification for the regional seas scheme and if the Irish Sea has been chosen as a candidate area for the pilot scheme? If so, is that not a good reason for the Department to accelerate the establishment of a coastal forum rather than put it on the long finger?


When speaking about a coastal forum, I refer to the North West Coastal Forum’s regional seas pilot study. I understand that this project proposes bringing existing Great Britain partnerships together with partners in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. It seeks to improve the planning and management of the Irish Sea and give a holistic approach to resource management issues. The Irish Sea would no doubt be an ideal location for testing this regional seas approach.
I have consulted with colleagues in other Departments about the merits of the concept of establishing a Northern Ireland coastal forum. Integrated coastal zone management is another issue on which the European Union is keen to see progress. In the light of these factors, I have asked my officials to arrange for a scoping study to be carried out to examine the issues that such a body would address, its potential membership and the resources it would require. I am not sure if I have answered the Member’s question, but that is the information that I have.

Zebra Mussels: Lough Erne

6. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the action taken by his Department to reduce the ecological effects of zebra mussels on flora and fauna in Lough Erne.
(AQO91/01)


Now that zebra mussels have become established in Lough Erne, I am afraid that there are no practical measures that can be taken to reduce their ecological effects there. My Department is working with the support of an interdepartmental zebra mussel control group on an awareness-raising campaign to stop their spread to other lakes. This is important, given the impossibility of removing zebra mussels once they have become established.


The Minister will agree that this is a disastrous situation for the Erne system. Can he assure the Assembly that appropriate action will be taken to counteract the spread of the mussels to other parts of Northern Ireland? Every weekend trailers and boats travel to all parts of the Province from the Erne system. What does the Department intend to do about that?


Being a member of the community in the Fermanagh area near Lough Erne, I am conversant with what is taking place. Sadly, the zebra mussels have taken hold there. The interdepartmental group runs an awareness campaign aimed at limiting the spread of zebra mussels, and it is planning further research into their impact and into potential control measures.
The leaflet ‘Zebra Mussels in Northern Ireland’ published in June 2000 highlights the potential problem to users and anglers and outlines precautions that must be taken to prevent the spread of this nuisance to other waterways in Northern Ireland. These leaflets have been widely distributed through boating and angling outlets.
A zebra mussel newsletter was published in June 2001 which provides information on their impact in Lough Erne to date. The public awareness campaign is specifically targeted at the most vulnerable lakes, including Lough Melvin, Lough Neagh and several clusters of small lakes. Unfortunately, this problem has gripped Lough Erne, and we do not want it to spread to any other lake in Northern Ireland. I advise people to pay attention to the documentation that has been issued on the control of zebra mussels, because once they arrive they are difficult, if not impossible, to exclude. I encourage people to take great precautions with the keels of boats and ensure that they hose them off before taking them to different waters.

Planning Law

7. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to amend current planning law.
(AQO25/01)


My Department is preparing a Planning (Amendment) Bill, which I propose to introduce in the Assembly in June 2002. It follows the issuing of a public consultation paper in 1999, which sought comment on proposals to amend planning legislation. The responses received in the consultation exercise generally welcomed the proposals in the consultation paper.
The Bill will include provisions to simplify, streamline and strengthen my Department’s existing enforcement powers. It is proposed that the Bill will introduce new contravention notices, breach of condition notices, new powers to seek a court injunction and higher penalties for breaches of planning control. Provisions will also be included to increase my Department’s powers relating to the protection of listed buildings, together with proposals to introduce building preservation notices as a means of spot listing historic buildings. There will also be provisions to strengthen my Department’s powers in relation to the protection of trees and tree preservation orders. The Bill will also include other provisions to strengthen planning control.


The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not ask him about third party appeals, although it was on my mind. However, I ask him to give me the same information that he has promised to other Members. Is he satisfied with the current operation of planning appeals procedures? In particular, I draw his attention to the fact that the Planning Appeals Commission decided recently to allow a further 200 houses on the site known as Mayfield, at Hightown, Glengormley, in addition to the 1,100 first permitted.


Time is up, Mr Ford. Minister, would you be kind enough to respond to Mr Ford’s question in writing?


The clock says 29:48. May I please continue, to make up for the time lost?


Yes, if the question can be answered in five seconds.


On a point of order. I was not allowed to ask my question in full because you cut me off at least 15 seconds before the end of the time that I had to speak. How can you redress that for me now?


The Member could get a written answer. I call Mr McNamee.


On a point of order.


Mr Pat McNamee’s point of order was made an hour ago.


I refer to Standing Order 19(2). During questions to the acting First Minister and acting Deputy First Minister, and while asking a supplementary question to Question 6, Mr McFarland made a statement that was factually incorrect. He referred to three members of Sinn Féin who were arrested in Colombia. That statement was incorrect and improper.


Mr McFarland is not in the House. I shall ask him to respond to you.


On a point of order. Question Time for each Minister should last for 30 minutes exactly. You cut a Member off when the clock showed 29 minutes, 28 seconds. The Member obviously did not get to complete his question. It may well have been that he would not have received an answer — given the Minister’s reputation, he probably would not have had an answer anyway even if he had had another 10 minutes — but he was unable to ask his question. It is incumbent on you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to explain how you intend to redress such a genuine grievance.


I quote an old saying from my days of studying Latin:
"De minimis non curat lex".
It means, "the law does not concern itself with trivia". I am sure that that took me four seconds to say. I have no reason to believe that the Member was in any way inhibited. All that he could have got by way of a response was about — at the most — a sentence.


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has correctly quoted from Standing Orders that Question Time should last for 30 minutes. By his account, I was cut off 32 seconds before the end. After you cut me off, I looked at the clock and at least 15 seconds remained. Therefore, I probably lost at least half of the time that I should have had to pose the supplementary question to the Minister. I am afraid that my Latin is not as good as yours, but that does not seem to be "de minimis" to me.


The Minister will respond in writing to the Member.


Therefore, he will respond to a question that I have not yet asked.


The Member will receive a written answer. I thank Mr Wilson for his gratuitous remarks.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)


On a point of order. I am unsure, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether you or the preceding Deputy Speaker will respond to the point of order raised by the Member from Sinn Féin. However, if you do, will you take into account that one of those arrested in Colombia was a Sinn Féin election worker, another was a leading member on the platform at a Sinn Féin conference and the third man was the official Sinn Féin representative for South America?


Mr Robinson, you know that that is not a point of order.

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Bloomfield Report

Mr David Ford: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Bloomfield Report.
(AQO19/01)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Bloomfield Report made 20 recommendations — some generic and some specific. The devolved Administration and the Northern Ireland Office have responsibility for taking forward the recommendations in the devolved, reserved and excepted fields respectively. With regard to the generic recommendations, all Government Departments are represented on the interdepartmental working group set up to co-ordinate activity on victims’ issues. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has recently published a consultation paper on a cross-departmental strategy aimed at facilitating the co-ordination and improvement of the delivery of services. Health boards have established trauma advisory panels and issued directories of services; the criminal injuries compensation system has been reviewed; a trauma centre has been established; issues relating to the disappeared have been taken forward; and a memorial fund has been established to assist victims in a variety of ways.

Mr David Ford: It is unfortunate that the two junior Ministers with direct responsibility never seem able to come to the Assembly to answer for actions that, Members are told, are their responsibility.
Is the acting Deputy First Minister satisfied with the present level of communication with the Victims Liaison Unit of the Northern Ireland Office? As well as the cross-departmental strategy, the Programme for Government mentioned capacity building and victims’ groups, contact with victims’ groups, informing the community about the presence of the Victims Unit and assessing what improvements are needed. What further movements have taken place, given that those were all aims of the Programme for Government for this year?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I am sorry that the Member has to make do with Sir Reg Empey and myself in the absence of junior Ministers.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is responsible for all devolved matters, and the Northern Ireland Office is responsible for reserved and excepted matters. We appreciate that, sometimes, that is confusing, and an information leaflet was sent out at the end of January to victims’ groups, individual victims and the victims’ spokespersons of political parties. The leaflet set out the responsibilities of the respective units and the responsibilities of the devolved Government.
The exercise has produced positive feedback from a variety of groups and has been built on by the continuation of a rolling programme of visits to victims’ groups by the staff in the Victims Unit. The consultation process addresses the issue of what the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Office need to do to ensure that victims know which part of Government to deal with.

Executive Meeting

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the date of the next Executive meeting.
(AQO4/01)

Sir Reg Empey: The next meeting of the Executive will take place on Thursday 13 September 2001.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the acting First Minister assure the House that he will use the next meeting of the Executive to raise the objections to IRA/Sinn Féin’s continued presence in the Executive that many members of his party voiced during the summer recess during the Colombian episode? If so, and if he is genuinely concerned, will he sign the motion for the exclusion of Sinn Féin that the DUP has tabled and has left with the Business Office?

Sir Reg Empey: The hon Member will know that the Belfast Agreement put a series of obligations on parties that signed up to it. One of those obligations was that disarmament had to take place. That is long overdue. The Member will also know that under the rules, exclusions can be processed if there is cross-community support for them. I do not know what measures, other than tabling the motion, he has taken.
A few weeks ago, the Member said that he would not be part of any coalition that included any non-Unionist. I do not know whether his party shares that view, but I am conscious that any motion for exclusion requires cross-community support in the House. In 1998, the PrimeMinister made certain commitments, publicly and in writing, to our party and to the public in 1998. I look to him to honour his commitments.

Programme for Government

Ms Carmel Hanna: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail progress on the development of the latest Programme for Government and to indicate how it will differ from last year’s programme.
(AQO103/01)

Mr Seamus Mallon: Under the Belfast Agreement, we agreed that each year the Executive would agree and review, as necessary, a programme incorporating an agreed budget linked to the policies. That programme was scrutinised by Assembly Committees and approved by the Assembly. The process of reviewing and rolling forward the Programme for Government is under way.
An interdepartmental group representing Ministers met during the summer. It prepared a draft, which the Executive will consider this week. The drafting process has taken account of the comments made by Assembly Committees and others in response to the Executive’s position report on the Programme for Government and Budget.
The revised Programme for Government will focus on the 2002-03 financial year. We plan to present it to the Assembly in draft form, together with the draft Budget, in the week commencing 24 September 2001. The present consensus, as was clear from the comments made by Committees, is that the broad priorities endorsed by the Assembly in March remain valid. However, a year’s experience of administration may enable us to refine our analyses and strategic direction. We will also work to improve the public service agreements and to introduce new service delivery agreements.

Ms Carmel Hanna: Will the revised Programme for Government reinforce the fight against sectarianism, which is all too evident in our society and has been especially evident during the past week in Ardoyne?

Mr Seamus Mallon: We all deplore the situation at Holy Cross Primary School. We ask everyone connected with that dispute to take a step back and put the interests of the children first. We must build a process to secure a long-term resolution, and we are working to see how that can be achieved.
Children cannot be allowed to suffer the unacceptable intimidation and abuse that we have witnessed recently. Such sectarian strife, which places children at the forefront, is the road to disaster for all of us. The problem is not just north Belfast’s problem; it is a problem for all of us. Adults have failed the children by allowing it to happen. We must reflect carefully on how we can help to stop it now. The Executive have unanimously supported the efforts made locally to resolve those problems. We have worked closely with those trying to facilitate a resolution during the past few weeks, and we are continuing to do all that we can to make progress.
We will consider the first draft of the Programme for Government later this week, and we will consider carefully the proposals that it might include on measures to tackle the deep and painful divisions in our society. We expect that those proposals will reflect and build on the progress that has already been made.

Victims’ Strategy

Mr Eddie McGrady: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to comment on the review and changes to the delivery of front line services envisaged in the consultation paper on a victims’ strategy.
(AQO53/01)

Sir Reg Empey: The consultation paper on a victims’ strategy was issued on 7 August 2001, and the consultation period is due to last until 9 November 2001. Until the period of consultation has ended and all replies have been received and evaluated, it would not be appropriate to determine which services in the relevant Departments or agencies will need to be considered.
In implementing the strategy, the Executive will take appropriate steps to ensure that service delivery is improved. Not all the changes will require financial solutions, and in some cases a change to existing work practices may be all that is needed.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the acting First Minister for his reply. He referred to the consultation paper on the victims’ strategy that was issued on 7 August. That paper said that 30 years of violence had left a devastating trail of victims with a wide range of symptoms and requirements. Can the acting First Minister give an indication about the adequacy of the funding? Will it be sufficient to address seriously and fundamentally the continuing trauma of those people?

Sir Reg Empey: Funding is one of the issues on which, I hope, we can find common cause. As I said, it is not always a matter of resources; it is, perhaps, a question of people altering their procedures and having an awareness of the requirements. There are funds available under the Peace II proposals. As the Member will know, there is £6·67 million provided in the peace and reconciliation funding. We are also negotiating with the Northern Ireland Office about a sum of money in its budget that could be the subject of a transfer to our budget. That is an ongoing negotiation. The combination of those two aspects, along with the responses that we hope to receive in the consultation exercise, will provide us with a more effective delivery of service.

Disability Rights Task Force

Mr Eugene McMenamin: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on consultations it has had to advance the work of the disability rights task force.
(AQO104/01)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Executive are committed to ensuring that disabled people have comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. The Programme for Government includes a number of initiatives and actions which will honour that commitment, including additional places on the access to work scheme and an increase in the number of adaptations to existing homes to make them more accessible for disabled people. Our consultation paper on the Northern Ireland Executive’s detailed response to the recommendations in the disability rights task force report ‘From Exclusion to Inclusion’, apart from those concerning education, will be issued shortly. The disability rights task force set us a challenging agenda, and we believe its impressive report will play an important role in achieving equality of opportunity for disabled people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I welcome the acting Deputy First Minister’s comments that it is a matter of enforceable civil rights for disabled people. I also welcome his commitment to the forthcoming consultation paper. Will we proceed to legislation as soon as possible? That has already been done in Britain, with the introduction of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member makes a good point. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which takes forward the disability rights task force recommendations on education in Britain, received Royal Assent in May. Responsibility for taking forward the recommendations in Northern Ireland rests with the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning, and both Ministers have stated their commitment to introducing legislation. I understand that it is intended to issue a consultative document later this year about what should go into the Northern Ireland legislation.

Visit of Ambassador Haass

Mr Alan McFarland: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to state what plans have been made to meet United States Ambassador Haass during his visit to Belfast this week.
(AQO82/01)

Sir Reg Empey: We can confirm that Ambassador Haass is due in Belfast on a two-day visit beginning tomorrow. His itinerary includes meetings with representatives from several of the main political parties, as well as a range of other engagements. Mr Mallon and myself expect to be present at separate meetings with the ambassador during the course of his visit.

Mr Alan McFarland: Mr Haass today said that he was deeply disturbed over the arrests of the Republicans in Colombia, a country in which there are hundreds of American citizens and in which America spends billions of dollars.
Will the acting First Minister encourage the United States Government to take action against Sinn Féin in the USA if the case that the three Sinn Féin members were involved in training activity with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Colombia is proven?

Sir Reg Empey: We all accept that the arrests introduce a deeply disturbing dimension to the situation. We talked earlier about three-, four- and five- year-old children having access to schools, which I support. However, we must remember that FARC kidnaps five-year-old children and holds them for six months. An American child was released only after police action.
We must also remember that those people make their living from pedalling death to young people in America and Europe through narcotics. Action has allegedly been taken by certain paramilitary organisations in our society against people who pedal drugs. Therefore, I cannot understand how others can consort with an organisation that makes its living from selling drugs and narcotics and from kidnapping young people. As a result, a huge problem has arisen. It is interesting to note that some Members who are normally so vocal have been silent about this.

Rev William McCrea: The activities of the child- kidnapping, drug-running, anti-United States terrorists, who have been found in Colombia recently, alarm the people of the Province. At his meeting with Ambassador RichardN. Haass, will the acting First Minister urge the Ambassador to ensure that the UnitedStates Government will take action now to close the fund-raising door that is open to IRA/Sinn Féin?

Sir Reg Empey: I said that Ambassador Haass would be meeting party representatives. I hope to be one of those representatives. I have already made personal representations to him along those lines. I have no difficulty in repeating them, because FARC is a dangerous organisation. It poses a threat not only to American activities in Colombia, but to western Europe and the United States through the pedalling of poison, which is primarily aimed at young people. FARC is an unsavoury organisation. There is no way that any involvement with it can be swept under the carpet. The American Administration are genuinely shocked, and there may be congressional hearings. Some of my Colleagues will take the opportunity to draw those matters to the attention of the American legislators this week.

Decommissioning

Rt Hon David Trimble: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what reports have been received and whether consultations have taken place between them and Her Majesty’s Government on the issue of decommissioning.
(AQO122/01)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question and for the little bit of nostalgia that accompanies it; it will, no doubt, develop into neuralgia before the question is over. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) has reported to the British and Irish Governments five times this year, and those reports have been published. The latest report was dated 6August2001. We have not jointly consulted the British Government on the issue of decommissioning. However, our respective parties have met the British Government separately to discuss the matter.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Minister will recall that, back in those happy days when we were participating in office together, we were severally consulted by the Government from time to time on the issue. It would be valuable if it could be confirmed that, in the run-up to August this year, we were told that both the British and Irish Governments had made it clear to the Republican movement that the actual fulfilment of its obligations — the commencement of actual decommissioning — was necessary and that engagement with the IICD and agreement on modalities — welcome though that would be — would not be sufficient by themselves.
Will the acting Deputy First Minister join me in appealing — even if it is to remarkably empty Benches — to the representatives of the Republican movement to ensure that their obligations are discharged in the course of the next few weeks and that they do not put the continued operation of the Assembly in peril?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member will be aware that all participants in the Good Friday Agreement have agreed that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) has responsibility for achieving the decommissioning element of the Good Friday Agreement. The commission can achieve that objective only by working with all paramilitary groups, and I call on all groups to engage intensively with the commission without further delay. The latest IICD report reflected progress in respect of IRA weaponry, and it was deeply unhelpful that that progress was overtaken by that group’s withdrawal from contact with the IICD.
I agree with the statement that was made subsequent to that by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in which he anticipated the type of action that would deal with the issue, following the undertaking given to the IICD. Unfortunately, that action has not taken place, but the will of the people is that the matter be dealt with once and for all and in such a way that it will no longer damage the political process.
Alongside the resolution of decommissioning, we must also make progress on policing, the operation of the institutions and normalisation if we are to resolve all the difficulties facing the political process.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the acting Deputy First Minister not think it strange that, when the former First Minister was asked that question in this House, he hedged? Now he asks the same question. That is an interesting situation. When the Democratic Unionist Party met Gen de Chastelain, he said that the talks had not been called off and that the IRA had said that it had withdrawn its offer but had not ceased to keep the link. Why is he telling us the opposite today?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I note the Member’s remark about the gamekeeper-turned-poacher. It is a strange situation, not without its piquancy.
I cannot answer for the independent commission about discussions that the Member and his party might have had. Broadly, the issue has had a festering effect on the political process. It has damaged it and has led to the type of suspicion and antagonism that we saw only too vividly last week. The issue must now, surely, be dealt with once and for all.

Mr John Dallat: Does the acting Deputy First Minister share my frustration and disappointment that the latest IICD report was withdrawn in days? Will he, on behalf of all the people in Ireland who supported the Good Friday Agreement, urge the IRA forthwith to reinstate its offer to IICD?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I fully agree with the Member’s comments. Decommissioning is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement and must be addressed if we are to overcome our current difficulties. I have no hesitation about asking the IRA to deal with the issue in a way that will allow the full political potential of the Good Friday Agreement to be realised.

Programme for Government: Economic Issues

Mrs Annie Courtney: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in view of the more difficult economic climate predicted for the year ahead, to indicate how the revised Programme for Government will address the issue.
(AQO101/01)

Sir Reg Empey: With the priority of securing a competitive economy, the Executive have agreed an important set of measures that will provide the infrastructure and environment for economic growth. Simultaneously, we have placed strong emphasis on ensuring that we have the skills needed for a modern economy, through investment in education and skills.
The revised Programme for Government continues to refine those priorities and seeks to develop our programmes. That will create a stronger economy so that we may provide appropriate support to those affected by the downturn in the global economy and respond to changing economic circumstances.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Although I welcome the acting First Minister’s assurance that support for those affected by the downturn will be forthcoming, does he recognise that the downturn is already being felt in the north-west through, for example, the loss of jobs at Calcast Ltd in Campsie last week? A comprehensive package of measures, including the provision of gas to the north-west, is required.

Sir Reg Empey: It should never be said that an opportunity to get that one in was wasted. The Member will be aware that Colleagues in the Executive are discussing the provision of gas beyond Greater Belfast, and we hope to determine our policy on that soon.
There has been a history of difficulties with Calcast Ltd. Its current parent company undertook an investment programme that resulted in the provision of new machinery and production lines, and that has led to some job losses.
The economy changes all the time. Our job is to ensure that we have the best skills and infrastructure possible, to ensure that our companies remain competitive in world markets. As the Member knows, I am frequently in the north-west and in her city. I take a keen interest in the economy of that part of the Province, and I assure her that my departmental agencies are doing all that they can in co-operation with local authorities and other organisations in the area to create the best possible opportunities for job growth.

Colombian Terrorists/Irish Republicans

Mrs Joan Carson: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail if it has had any contact with the Administration of President Bush in respect of the apparent involvement of Irish Republicans with Colombian terrorists and, if so, have these contacts suggested that the President shares with me a sense of disappointment at this apparent involvement.
(AQO85/01)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I have been informed that there has been contact between the acting First Minister's office and the United States Administration on that matter. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has ongoing contact with President Bush’s Administration on a range of issues pertaining to political developments here.

Mrs Joan Carson: Does the acting Deputy First Minister have any information on when the United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee will hold hearings in Washington? Will the Executive send representatives to those hearings?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I understand that no decision has been taken on whether the United States Congress International Relations Committee will hold hearings into the recent arrests in Colombia. Until that matter is decided on by that body, it would be impossible for the Executive to form a proper opinion on the second part of the question.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the acting Deputy First Minister intend to impress upon President Bush’s Administration the depth of the concerns of people in the Province? Will he seek an assurance that specific action will be taken against IRA/Sinn Féin in all its activities in the USA, whether they be fund-raising or public relations? Moreover, will he press for strict passport controls?

Mr Seamus Mallon: As the acting First Minister said earlier, Ambassador Haass will be in Northern Ireland later this week. I assume that political parties will meet him.
I have no doubt that points about the arrests in Colombia will be made in the meetings with political parties.

Mr Speaker: Our time is up for questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Mr Pat McNamee: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We do not take points of order during Question Time, but we will happily take them at the end. I will ask my Colleague who is taking over from me to note that.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Regional Development

Craigavon Bridge

Mr William Hay: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the total cost of upgrading Craigavon Bridge in Londonderry and what problems have been identified with the upgrading.
(AQO57/01)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Roads Service officials have advised me that the total cost of refurbishing Craigavon Bridge in Londonderry will be £4·2 million. The work is being undertaken in three phases. Phases one and two involved the refurbishment of the upper and lower decks of the bridge at a cost of £1 million each. Phase three will involve the painting of the whole structure at a cost of £2·2 million. Phases one and two have been completed; phase three has just started and will be completed by the end of summer 2002. Some aspects of the resurfacing work that were carried out on the upper deck as part —[Interruption].

Sir John Gorman: Whoever’s mobile phone is ringing should get out —[Interruption]. The law treats everyone equally.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Some aspects of the resurfacing work that was carried out on the upper deck as part of phase one did not meet the required standard. Officials, therefore, instructed the consultant and the contractor to undertake remedial work. This work was substantially completed on 2 September.

Mr William Hay: I welcome the Minister’s detailed statement. However, as he is a public representative for Londonderry, he will be aware of the high level of congestion that the work caused for many who live in the city. The work particularly affected those who live on the east bank of the river. As we move into the third phase of the scheme, can the Minister assure us that we will be able to seriously address some of the traffic problems caused by the scheme while the main work was being done? That is very important. Most of the public representatives across the city received major complaints about the traffic congestion that this scheme caused.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. I appreciate the disruption that was caused. I suspect that most Ministers who live close to works that cause disruption are lobbied on such matters, and I was not an exception. I am acutely aware of the problems that were encountered last weekend. During the first 10 weeks of the painting contract that constitutes phase three, minor lane restrictions will be in operation along the lower deck of the bridge. After that period, no further lane restrictions on Craigavon Bridge are envisaged, and I hope that that will be the case.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I also welcome the Minister’s response, and I agree that work has been an ongoing problem. Did the initial problem result from the original design or did the work have to be redone because of the way in which it had originally been carried out?

Mr Gregory Campbell: There was a change in the specification of the original work, and as a result the costs of the works that were carried out — the works in relation to the change in specification that caused the problem — were borne entirely by the contractor and the design consultant who were responsible for the specification in the first instance.
When the problem arose — and we were aware of it some months ago — Roads Service took the opportunity to do some additional works of its own that it would have had to carry out in any case. Roads Service paid for that work, but the cost of the work caused as a result of the specification change was entirely borne by the contractor and the consultant.

Department for Regional Development: Decentralising of Functions

Mr Barry McElduff: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail those plans that have been initiated to decentralise functions within his Department.
(AQO63/01)

Mr Gregory Campbell: At present three quarters of my Department’s staff are located outside the Greater Belfast area. Staff are employed at 74 locations across Northern Ireland. Although I have no plans for further decentralisation I will continue to ensure that my Department’s staff and functions are located where maximum efficiency in the delivery of services to all people in Northern Ireland can be provided.

Mr Barry McElduff: Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I want to see an increasing dividend in the matter of decentralisation. There is a growing focus on decentralisation within the Civil Service, and a conference will be held in the second half of October on that very matter.
With regard to decentralisation, I would like the west of the Bann to be viewed positively. I understand — and I can be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong — that the Department for Regional Development undertakes some of its administration for the Six Counties in Enniskillen, not least the processing of discs for disabled parking.

Mr Gregory Campbell: By their very nature the services delivered by my Department are highly decentralised. A cursory examination, for example, of the four client divisional headquarters of Roads Service are ample testimony to that. They are located in Belfast, Omagh, Coleraine and Craigavon. The north, south, east and west are covered so we are already fairly decentralised.
There are a significant number of industrial employees in Northern Ireland. However, I will continue to examine ways of ensuring that decentralisation is ongoing. We aim to achieve maximum effectiveness in delivery of the service and will continue to do so.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for the answer he gave to the original question. I welcome the fact that there are 74 locations for members of staff to work in. Can the Minister assure the House that these offices, services and staff will not be removed from the east of the Province, outside of Belfast, as dictated by Sinn Féin/IRA? He knows that the vast majority of the population of Northern Ireland lives in the east of the Province and therefore should have jobs, services and facilities available to them. Does he agree that to take jobs from the east, simply to give them to the west, would create a false economy and is not a realistic approach to the problem of trying to bring new jobs to disadvantaged areas?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am more than happy to confirm that the effective delivery of services will be the most important criterion in determining where those services are best delivered from and to. It is the case that the delivery of services across Northern Ireland has been adequate.
I will go so far as to say that that will continue to be the case without major change. If I were convinced that any elements within the Department for Regional Development were not already decentralised, I might be persuaded. However, given that we are effectively decentralised, I do not see a compelling case for further action on this.

Newry Rail Terminus

Mr John Fee: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what progress has been made towards securing a new passenger rail terminus in Newry.
(AQO39/01)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHCo) and Translink have wanted to construct a new railway station in Newry for some considerable time. They have had regular dialogue with local council representatives on the matter. However the transport companies have experienced some difficulties in gaining access to their first choice of site, which is directly opposite the site of the present station. Consequently, several other site options have been considered including a site on land near the Cloghogue roundabout. There are certain constraints with this alternative site, such as limited space and distance from the town, making it less attractive as a potential solution. Officials in NITHCo and Translink will continue to investigate how best to provide a new railway station for Newry.
While I am keen to enhance the provision of public transport throughout Northern Ireland, and recent developments have shown that to be the case, I must point out that notwithstanding any agreement on site location, any scheme to provide a new railway station in Newry would have to compete for resources with many other pressing transport needs. As well as resolving the difficulties of location, the provision of a new station therefore depends on the Assembly’s allocating sufficient resources to public transport.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that there is a certain frustration in places such as Newry? They have seen resources put into all the other major train stations such as those in Belfast, Portadown, Dundalk, Drogheda and Dublin, and they are still suffering with temporary accommodation.
Can the Minister ensure that any consideration of a new station for Newry will include provision for park- and-ride facilities, free transport to the town centre, which exists in other towns, and will also include some revision of the timetable so that there are friendly train times for workers and students who commute every day to Belfast and Dublin?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member has raised a number of issues. If we had overcome the hurdles of location and the desirability of the most preferred location, we would be able to try to get the best possible station with the facilities that the Member has requested. Unfortunately we are not yet at that point.
I will undertake to ensure that NITHCo and Translink are reminded of the issues that the Member has raised in his question and in correspondence. I will remind them of the need not only to press ahead with all speed with the provision of a new station, if possible, but to take on board the other points the Member raised regarding facilities.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s reply. However, does he not accept that the existing considerations have all been rather ad hoc on the part of the holding company? Will he undertake to initiate a formal study considering all possible venues for any new station and give detailed costings?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am to have discussions with senior officials in the transport holding company, and I undertake to ensure that this matter and the accompanying issues that Mr Kennedy and Mr Fee have raised with me today and that affect the people of Newry and the surrounding area are included in those discussions.

Knockmore Railway Line

Mr Seamus Close: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will make a statement on the consultation process on the closure of the Knockmore railway line.
(AQO27/01)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Assembly Budget of 18 December 2000 did not provide sufficient resources for the retention of services on the Antrim to Knockmore line. Consequently, Northern Ireland Railways had to initiate the statutory consultation procedures to discontinue services on the line in accordance with section 60 of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
More than 1,000 letters of objection to the proposal were received during the statutory process. Three cases indicated genuine hardship that could not be alleviated by the proposed substitute bus service. Subsequently I commissioned an equality impact assessment on the discontinuation of services on the line. A consultation paper was issued on 31 August to a large range of consultees. The consultation process will remain open for a period of 12 weeks and will close on 23 November.

Mr Seamus Close: Can the Minister confirm that the 1,000 letters that were received — from groups such as the Crumlin Community Group, the Upper Ballinderry Group, Crumlin High School and St Joseph’s Primary School, Crumlin — demonstrated a high degree of individual hardship, community hardship and social deprivation? Will he agree that a bus substitution scheme will not adequately deal with the general feeling of deprivation that will be brought about by the closure of the scheme? Will the Minister join with me in saying that it should remain open?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I readily join with the Member in concurring that there were a substantial number of replies. Unfortunately I am faced with a resource problem. I have been, and I am, concerned about trying to keep the line open. I ensured that a limited service would remain open in order to bridge the time until closure was likely. I also introduced free fares for the elderly in order to give more people an opportunity to use the line so that we could reassess the issue.
However, none of those things deals with the fact that the resources required to keep the line open are simply not available, and that leaves me in a difficult position. I am doing what I can to ensure that the line remains open and I will make additional bids for resources in order to ensure that it stays open. If that attempt fails, the Assembly will have to vote on whether to retain the line and the existing resources or to sanction closure.

Mr Jim Wilson: I thank the Minister for the reply to the question. More importantly, I welcome the recent issue of a consultation document on the matter, as it affects my constituents in South Antrim. Will the Minister consider my suggestion that he, as part of the consultation process, make himself available for a meeting? The Member representing Lagan Valley (Mr Close) and I will not disagree about the location, since our two constituencies are directly concerned. Will the Minister meet people who are directly involved in the campaign to keep the line open and hear their concerns?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I went on site the day I announced the extension of the service for approximately 12 months. I would have no difficulty in going back on site again. However, I will leave it for Members to decide the most appropriate location. I would prefer to do so once we have reached the conclusion of the consultation exercise, which has just opened in the past week. It would be improper for me to go along at this point.

Rev William McCrea: Many people will appreciate the Minister’s intervention in the issue. The Minister must know that the railway service in Northern Ireland has issued glossy brochures which have highlighted and gloried in the continuation of railway services, especially identifying the Belfast circle line, which takes in Belfast, Lisburn, and Antrim. Surely it is insufficient to have glossy brochures glorying in this if the service were to be removed. The Assembly must take the bull by the horns and allow the money to be allocated to ensure that this service is retained.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I have received extensive lobbying on the issue from a range of public representatives, including the hon Member Dr McCrea, who led delegations, lobbied, campaigned and asked me to go on site, as did others. I am exercised about the issue, but none of this delivers the additional resources to me. I am conscious of the need to respond positively. I want to do so, and I can simply concur with the hon Member’s comments and look forward to the unanimous support of the House when I ask for the money to carry out their wishes.

North Down Sewage Works

Mrs Eileen Bell: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the current position in regard to the north Down sewage works; and to make a statement.
(AQO98/01)

Mr Gregory Campbell: A new waste water treatment works, estimated to cost £35 million, is planned to serve the Bangor, Donaghadee and Millisle areas. Two sites have been shortlisted. I have set up a working party comprising representatives of North Down Borough Council and Ards Borough Council to review the suitability of the criteria and processes used in site selection. The first meeting of the working party was held on 10 August, and further meetings are proposed. I hope that the review can be completed in the next few months and a consensus reached between the councils and the Department. That being the case, it would enable a decision to be made on the site for the proposed new works very early in the new year.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I congratulate the Minister on the work that he has done on this matter. As you know, it has been going on for some years, and I am glad to hear that there has been some progress. Will the Minister issue a progress statement to the concerned residents at the two sites? They have been waiting four to five years to find out exactly what is happening. A progress statement from the Minister would be useful.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I would be happy to consider issuing a progress statement to the residents. I remind the House of the difficulties involved in this complex arena. I was at a meeting of Ards Borough Council on this issue some time ago. Most visits to councils that I undertake involve a range of opinions on a variety of topics. On that particular day, there was one opinion on that topic. The division that the location of the waste water treatment works has caused has been part of the problem in being unable to come to a conclusion.
That was the reason for my establishment of the working party. Obviously I will want to see consensus emerging, and I hope that it will. I will discuss the matter with my officials after the next meeting, and that should occur very shortly. At that point I will be happy to consider an up-to-date statement so that everyone will know exactly where we are and how long it will be before we reach the likely conclusion.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister has touched on it, but my question is a follow-through from the water treatment works itself. Does the Minister agree that the best site for such a water treatment works would be in north Down, and that it would be the most cost-effective option? How will he ensure that the strong opinion of Ards Borough Council and all its residents will be upheld?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I genuinely thank the Member for reinforcing the difficulty that this problem has brought about from day one. Any humour aside, we had, not precisely the same problem, but a similar problem, in Omagh, where there was a dispute and difference about the location of a waste water treatment works. I was reluctant to simply proceed to one site in the face of opposition from some residents. We managed, through a protracted series of meetings, to get broad consensus. I do not think that it is possible in these situations to ever get 100%, but we got very close to it in Omagh. I hope that we can do the same with this plant. The hon Member will understand if I decline his request to state emphatically where the waste water treatment works should be in advance of the working party reporting.

Mr Alan McFarland: Driving past the north Down sewage works at Holywood last night, I noticed that the site is still giving off its less-than-fragrant whiff. What is the current position there, and when will the new works be accepted into service and be fully active so that the people of Holywood can have some respite?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The hon Member will appreciate that not having had advance notification of the question, I do not have a ready-made response. I will ensure that he is written to as a matter of urgency.

Strangford Ferry: Free Travel for Senior Citizens

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he has any plans to introduce free passage for senior citizens using the Portaferry/Strangford ferry.
(AQO22/01)

Mr Eddie McGrady: 13. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what steps will be taken to introduce free travel for senior citizens on the Strangford ferry service; and to make a statement.
(AQO51/01)

Mrs Iris Robinson: 18. asked the Minister for Regional Development to make it his policy to extend his free fares for the elderly scheme to the Strangford ferry; and to make a statement.
(AQO58/01)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will take questions 6, 13 and 18 together, as they all relate to the same issue.
I am very sympathetic to the proposals contained in the questions posed by Mr McCarthy, Mr McGrady, and Mrs Iris Robinson. As part of the Roads Service’s review of fares for the ferry service, I will be considering the feasibility of extending the arrangement of free travel for senior citizens on public transport to include those travelling as foot passengers or passengers in cars on the ferry. I will make a further statement on this matter when the review of fares has been completed.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am very disappointed at the response, in view of the fact that this should have been included in the free transport for all senior citizens. Furthermore, great concerns are now being expressed by the workforce of that ferry service about the threat to jobs and conditions should it be taken over by the private sector. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that the Department’s staff on the ferry service will not be sacrificed simply for the dogma of privatisation?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am surprised that the Member is disappointed that I will consider the feasibility of extending the arrangement of free travel, which is what he asked me to do. I am surprised that he is disappointed that I have agreed, not only with what Mr McCarthy has asked for, but also with what Mr McGrady has written to me about and with what Mrs Robinson wrote to me and came to see me about. I am surprised that that is the case.
I will consider that feasibility. When the review of fares has been completed I will want to make an announcement. I do not want to pre-empt that review. As for the possibility of the ferry going into the private sector, I am the Minister for Regional Development and I have no knowledge of any such acquisition.

Environment

Sir John Gorman: I wish to advise Members that question 13, in the name of Mr Sammy Wilson, has been transferred to the Minister for Regional Development, and will receive a written answer. Question 17, in the name of Mrs Carmel Hanna, has been withdrawn.

Malone Conservation Area

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment to comment on the success or otherwise of the Malone conservation area in south Belfast; and to make a statement.
(AQO76/01)

Mr Sam Foster: The Malone conservation area was established in August 2000 in recognition of the area’s special townscape merits. Planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage’, sets out my Department’s planning policies for the control of development in conservation areas.
Designation as a conservation area introduces control over the demolition of unlisted buildings in the area. Anyone wishing to demolish a building must first apply to my Department for conservation area consent. It is a criminal offence to carry out such work without consent. Designation as a conservation area also brings with it a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area.
Since designation, this has been the prime consideration for my Department in assessing the acceptability of development proposals in the Malone area. Recent decisions by the Planning Appeals Commission have endorsed the Department’s approach and recognised the significance of the conservation area designation in considering development proposals.
Designation of the Malone area has therefore increased the weight attached to conservation of the built heritage in the area. It has also addressed local concerns, expressed prior to designation, regarding the level of uncontrolled demolition. Judged on these terms, I consider at this early stage that the designation has been beneficial in helping to conserve the built heritage of the area.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I know that it is early days, and current information may indicate that it has been beneficial, but I put it to the Minister that there is still a fair amount of raping and pillaging of south Belfast in the developmental sense. Quite a lot of the development is fairly ruthless and tasteless, in its own way.
Is the Minister aware of the deep concerns in the Cleaver area about the plans to destroy 94 Malone Road? How they intend dislodging number 94 from number 96, which is closely attached to it, I do not know. Both are buildings of considerable merit; one is to be replaced with 14 or 16 town houses. The people who live there are not totally against reasonable development, but they are deeply concerned because an adjacent site at 102 Malone Road has approval for what they consider to be reasonably acceptable development. That development has been reviewed, and planning permission has had to be sought again. Is the Minister aware of the serious concern that while the conservation area designation has done a bit, it has not done enough, and is not strong enough against difficult developments?

Mr Sam Foster: Many applications for development within the Malone area are currently being assessed. Many of these may be viewed as controversial to some extent because this is a highly desirable residential area in which both the existing residents and developers have a keen interest. In June 2001 the Planning Service received applications for the demolition of the Ulster Teacher’s Union building at the junction of Cleaver Park, 94 Malone Road, and the erection of 15 apartments in two blocks linked by a stairwell and overpass, and an associated application for consent to demolish an existing building within the conservation area. There is another application in that area, and these applications are at an early stage in the planning process.
Consultation responses have not been received and the time period for public comment has not yet expired. As one of the applications relates to a listed building consent, the views of the Environment and Heritage Service will be fundamental to the determination of the applications. Opinions, of course, will be placed before Belfast City Council for consultation before any decisions later this year.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Many South Belfast constituents have greatly welcomed the Minister’s initiative in introducing the conservation area, but I suppose the implication of Dr McDonnell’s question is the problem of houses immediately beyond the boundary as well. Redevelopment has typically involved the replacement of large Edwardian or Victorian family dwellings with large numbers of flats and apartments, with implications of greater car ownership and traffic in the area. Does the Minister therefore accept that in the future the closest possible collaboration between the Planning Service and the Roads Service must be exercised in making decisions about what is sustainable new housing development within that broad area?

Mr Sam Foster: We work in conjunction insofar as any application is concerned. Consideration is given and consultation undertaken, and no planning exercise is taken lightly. Planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage’ sets out my Department’s current planning policies for the control of development in conservation areas. There is a presumption in favour of retaining any building which makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area, while new development proposals should respect townscape and retain the overall integrity of the area. As Members may be aware, work has recently commenced on the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan. This will consider the need for specific planning policies for the conservation areas in the plan area, including the Malone area.

Giant’s Causeway: Planning Procedures

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the planning procedures used by his Department in the application at Giant’s Causeway known as the Nook.
(AQO5/01)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department received two planning applications and two related applications for listed building consent for a dwelling at 48 Causeway Road, Bushmills, on 4 May 2001. The dwelling, which is a listed building, is referred to locally as the Nook. These four applications were for two alternative proposals. One involved a change of use of the existing building with minimal modifications to its fabric and structure. The other changed the use of the building and proposed a substantial side extension which almost doubled the floor area of the existing building. The applications were advertised, neighbours were notified in the usual manner and appropriate consultations were carried out.
The applications were appraised with regard to all relevant development plans and policy documents including planning policy statement 6, ‘Planning Archaeology and the Built Heritage’, planning policy 1, ‘General Principles: A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland’ the North East Area Plan. Given the location of the development proposal and the issues raised with me in the course of considering the planning applications, I took a close interest in their consideration and made the final decision myself.
As a result, I determined that the application should be approved, and my Department issued approvals, both for a full planning and listed building consent on Friday 10 August 2001. I am satisfied that the applications were processed consistent with all standard procedures, that all the necessary consultations were carried out and that the advice of consultees was considered and taken into account.
All objections and representations were fully considered. The proposals were thoroughly appraised with regard to all development plan and policy documents, and all relevant material considerations were properly assessed.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister agree that the intention expressed by the National Trust in its autumn/ winter magazine to seek a judicial review of the Department of the Environment’s policy on this matter and on the application is a waste of National Trust resources, given the procedures that the Minister has so carefully outlined to the House? Will the Minister assure the House that in all future applications at the Giant’s Causeway, the Department of the Environment will not become the "meat in the sandwich" of a commercial bidding war for valuable sites in that area?

Mr Sam Foster: The Department of the Environment takes objective decisions on all such applications. I understand that the National Trust has publicly stated that it will seek a judicial review of my decision. However, it has not yet sought leave of the courts to do so. In the circumstances, Members will understand that I do not wish to comment further on this matter.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Minister will be aware that such are the feelings about the application, as evidenced by the judicial review threat, that several concerned parties are considering taking this matter further under the human rights legislation, as the current legislation does not provide for third-party appeals and is a violation of their human rights.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: What is your question?

Mr Robert McCartney: It is not repetitive, unlike some. Has the Minister or the Department of the Environment sought legal advice on whether the current legislation for planning appeals, which does not provide for third- party appeals, is in contravention of the human rights legislation?

Mr Sam Foster: With regard to third-party appeals, I understand from the Alconbury case in England that the planning authority was not against human rights issues. However, that has not yet been proven.
In determining the applications I satisfied myself of the scale, character and detailed design and layout of the proposed development; and that the topography of the surrounding area and the character of the site and its curtilage were such that the proposals could be satisfactorily integrated into their surroundings without having a detrimental impact on the Giant’s Causeway or its setting.
I also satisfied myself that the whole development — including the proposed extension — would be in keeping with the existing building and the surrounding area; and that the proposed change of use would secure the upkeep and survival of this important listed building and would preserve its character and architecture for historic interest.
The decision has been made. The Department may be subject to a judicial review, and if that happens, so be it.

Mr Robert McCartney: I asked whether the Minister had sought any advice —

Sir John Gorman: Mr McCartney, you have asked your question.

Mournes National Park

Mr Eddie McGrady: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what progress has been made towards the designation of the Mournes as a national park; and to make a statement.
(AQO49/01)

Mr Sam Foster: My officials have prepared a report on national parks and on areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). The issues covered, including the involvement of local communities and the need to resource any management bodies, are complex and require careful consideration. I am considering the report and I will be sending it to the Committee for the Environment soon. I look forward to receiving its views and I will issue a statement on the way forward when I have the benefit of those views.
In view of the proposals under consideration I have no plans at present to designate a national park in the Mournes. However, the Mournes will continue to benefit from the protection given by their status as an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Mr Eddie McGrady: As the Minister knows, the Mournes were designated an area of outstanding natural beauty many years ago. That is not the problem. The problem is that the demands of farmers, fishermen, small industries, commercial enterprises, rural dwellers, day trippers and full-time tourists are having an enormous impact on the Mournes, and if we get peace the problem will be exacerbated.
Does the Minister agree that it is unnecessary to fulfil a programme of other areas of outstanding natural beauty before addressing the issue of creating a new, unique- to-Northern Ireland type of national park to which the Mourne Heritage Trust is already committed as representative of these dimensions? Can he not progress the matter further and more quickly? As time goes on the damage is being done.

Mr Sam Foster: I can understand Mr McGrady’s annoyance. He has pursued this issue several times and it is not an easy one to resolve. I hope to make an announcement on the way forward before the end of the year.
Careful consideration needs to be given to what type of park might be established here, and what its practical implications might be. We are not taking about publicly- owned land nor vast areas of remote countryside so careful consideration needs to be given to the administration of any proposed park and the relationships with any existing or future local government structures.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Regarding the request of the Member for South Down (Mr McGrady) for the designation of the Mournes as a national park, would the Minister agree that a Province-wide study should be carried out with the aim of determining whether several areas should be designated as national parks? In addition, would he consider the need for an impartial advisory committee, representing a wide range of interested groups, to oversee the project?

Mr Sam Foster: We have beautiful countryside throughout Northern Ireland, but I do not think that it would be feasible to designate all parts of Northern Ireland as a national park. There are areas of outstanding natural beauty, which have been recognised. However, in some parts of the Province people object to areas of outstanding natural beauty being designated. The fear is that there may be further planning obstacles when these people make planning applications. However, I can assure the Member that these issues do not go unrecognised, and they will be pursued in the course of time.

Mr Peter Robinson: In relation to the Mournes, would the Minister agree that the great concern of a number of local people is that planning permissions are still being given — in this area of natural beauty — and that there is no third-party appeal system to allow people to have their human rights upheld?
Will the Minister answer the question asked by the honourable and learned gentleman for North Down, Mr McCartney? Will he confirm that his Department received legal advice that indicated that, as things stand, his Department does not have the necessary procedures in place to successfully stave off any challenge that would be made under the human rights legislation?

Mr Sam Foster: My Department pursues all areas before it approves or refuses an application. The matter of third-party appeals is a difficult one. We have discussed it. At the present time, to introduce third-party appeals would prolong the situation within the planning system. Quite often we are knocked for having such a long planning approval process. The situation — and I think it was Alconbury that the Member referred to — is that it has not been found that the planning system was against —[Interruption].

Mr Robert McCartney: This is a different issue.

Mr Sam Foster: This is not a different issue, Mr McCartney.

Mr Robert McCartney: I have read that case very closely.

Mr Sam Foster: As it is understood by the Department and myself, what we are doing insofar as planning is concerned, and without the present third-party appeals, is well within human rights legislation and is acceptable.

Road Safety

Mr John Dallat: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads for the first six months of this year and to indicate if projected road safety targets are expected to be met for 2001.
(AQO109/01)

Mr Sam Foster: There were 67 people killed and 789 people seriously injured on Northern Ireland’s roads between 1 January 2001 and 30 June 2001. During the same period last year 81 people died and 826 were seriously injured. Provisional figures indicate that by 9 September 2001, 96 people had died compared with 109 by the same date last year. Figures for serious injuries after June 2001 are not yet available.
While I welcome the lower number of serious road casualties so far, it is not possible to predict what the final outcome will be for the full year.
I sincerely hope that the level of road casualties will continue to decline, and I urge all road users to contribute to that by behaving responsibly on our roads at all times.

Mr John Dallat: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the reduction in casualties. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the professionalism of their current television advertising campaign relating to road safety issues. Can the Minister assure the House that the campaign will be closely monitored for impact, and intensified if necessary? Will the Minister ensure that the message about death and injury on our roads is transmitted by all relevant means and targeted at young people in the hope that Northern Ireland will cease to be a place where so many young road users regularly lose their lives in accidents that are totally avoidable?

Mr Sam Foster: This is one of the issues that my Department and I take very personally. Road safety is a big issue and we will pursue it as far as we possibly can. I can assure the Member and the House that we will go to whatever lengths we can, within the system, to ensure that road tragedy eases considerably. We would love to see it cease completely, but it is no use pretending that that is possible.
The Department of the Environment focuses many of its publicity and education efforts on young drivers. In the United Kingdom the 17-to-24 age group represents 11% of driving licence holders but is involved in 25% of fatal and serious injury collisions. The 17-to-20 age group is 10 times more likely to be killed in a road crash than 35 to 54-year-olds. Sadly, it seems that young men are the main offenders when it comes to excessive speeding, drinking and driving, and failure to wear seat belts. While recent campaigns target young men in particular, the message I want to get through is equally relevant to other road users, young and old, male and female.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister agree that road safety issues are often raised when people make objections to planning applications? These objectors often feel that their right of appeal has been withheld because of the current planning laws. I give the Minister his third opportunity of the day to tell the House whether or not his Department has received legal opinion that indicates that, given the current absence of third-party planning appeals, the Minister is not complying with human rights legislation.

Sir John Gorman: That question is not relevant and the Minister may prefer not to answer it.

Mr Sam Foster: There seems to be an element of doubt and concern in three recent references to me in relation to our legal standing. In order to clarify the matter, I will ensure that the three Members concerned receive a written answer from my Department.

Regional Seas Pilot Scheme

Mr Arthur Doherty: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what action he is taking following Her Majesty’s Government’s initiative to develop a strategy for the conservation, protection and management of nationally important marine wildlife through a regional seas pilot scheme.
(AQO96/01)

Mr Sam Foster: It is widely accepted that current practice for managing the marine environment in the European Union is unsustainable. An alternative approach was put forward in the recent review of marine nature conservation issued by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Rather than apply uniform policies throughout EU waters, this regional seas approach would operate within defined and reasonably uniform areas. Its purpose would be to address the results of each of the activities affecting the marine ecosystem and develop tailored management regimes. My Department is co-operating with the Countryside Council for Wales on the potential of this approach and the sustainable management of fisheries in the Irish Sea. It is also considering an approach from England’s North West Coastal Forum to explore other aspects of regional seas management using the Irish Sea as a pilot area. Both studies will address wildlife issues.

Mr Arthur Doherty: Can the Minister say whether the review of marine nature conservation (RMNC) has considered the draft specification for the regional seas scheme and if the Irish Sea has been chosen as a candidate area for the pilot scheme? If so, is that not a good reason for the Department to accelerate the establishment of a coastal forum rather than put it on the long finger?

Mr Sam Foster: When speaking about a coastal forum, I refer to the North West Coastal Forum’s regional seas pilot study. I understand that this project proposes bringing existing Great Britain partnerships together with partners in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. It seeks to improve the planning and management of the Irish Sea and give a holistic approach to resource management issues. The Irish Sea would no doubt be an ideal location for testing this regional seas approach.
I have consulted with colleagues in other Departments about the merits of the concept of establishing a Northern Ireland coastal forum. Integrated coastal zone management is another issue on which the European Union is keen to see progress. In the light of these factors, I have asked my officials to arrange for a scoping study to be carried out to examine the issues that such a body would address, its potential membership and the resources it would require. I am not sure if I have answered the Member’s question, but that is the information that I have.

Zebra Mussels: Lough Erne

Mrs Joan Carson: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the action taken by his Department to reduce the ecological effects of zebra mussels on flora and fauna in Lough Erne.
(AQO91/01)

Mr Sam Foster: Now that zebra mussels have become established in Lough Erne, I am afraid that there are no practical measures that can be taken to reduce their ecological effects there. My Department is working with the support of an interdepartmental zebra mussel control group on an awareness-raising campaign to stop their spread to other lakes. This is important, given the impossibility of removing zebra mussels once they have become established.

Mrs Joan Carson: The Minister will agree that this is a disastrous situation for the Erne system. Can he assure the Assembly that appropriate action will be taken to counteract the spread of the mussels to other parts of Northern Ireland? Every weekend trailers and boats travel to all parts of the Province from the Erne system. What does the Department intend to do about that?

Mr Sam Foster: Being a member of the community in the Fermanagh area near Lough Erne, I am conversant with what is taking place. Sadly, the zebra mussels have taken hold there. The interdepartmental group runs an awareness campaign aimed at limiting the spread of zebra mussels, and it is planning further research into their impact and into potential control measures.
The leaflet ‘Zebra Mussels in Northern Ireland’ published in June 2000 highlights the potential problem to users and anglers and outlines precautions that must be taken to prevent the spread of this nuisance to other waterways in Northern Ireland. These leaflets have been widely distributed through boating and angling outlets.
A zebra mussel newsletter was published in June 2001 which provides information on their impact in Lough Erne to date. The public awareness campaign is specifically targeted at the most vulnerable lakes, including Lough Melvin, Lough Neagh and several clusters of small lakes. Unfortunately, this problem has gripped Lough Erne, and we do not want it to spread to any other lake in Northern Ireland. I advise people to pay attention to the documentation that has been issued on the control of zebra mussels, because once they arrive they are difficult, if not impossible, to exclude. I encourage people to take great precautions with the keels of boats and ensure that they hose them off before taking them to different waters.

Planning Law

Mr David Ford: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to amend current planning law.
(AQO25/01)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department is preparing a Planning (Amendment) Bill, which I propose to introduce in the Assembly in June 2002. It follows the issuing of a public consultation paper in 1999, which sought comment on proposals to amend planning legislation. The responses received in the consultation exercise generally welcomed the proposals in the consultation paper.
The Bill will include provisions to simplify, streamline and strengthen my Department’s existing enforcement powers. It is proposed that the Bill will introduce new contravention notices, breach of condition notices, new powers to seek a court injunction and higher penalties for breaches of planning control. Provisions will also be included to increase my Department’s powers relating to the protection of listed buildings, together with proposals to introduce building preservation notices as a means of spot listing historic buildings. There will also be provisions to strengthen my Department’s powers in relation to the protection of trees and tree preservation orders. The Bill will also include other provisions to strengthen planning control.

Mr David Ford: The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not ask him about third party appeals, although it was on my mind. However, I ask him to give me the same information that he has promised to other Members. Is he satisfied with the current operation of planning appeals procedures? In particular, I draw his attention to the fact that the Planning Appeals Commission decided recently to allow a further 200 houses on the site known as Mayfield, at Hightown, Glengormley, in addition to the 1,100 first permitted.

Sir John Gorman: Time is up, Mr Ford. Minister, would you be kind enough to respond to Mr Ford’s question in writing?

Mr David Ford: The clock says 29:48. May I please continue, to make up for the time lost?

Sir John Gorman: Yes, if the question can be answered in five seconds.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order. I was not allowed to ask my question in full because you cut me off at least 15 seconds before the end of the time that I had to speak. How can you redress that for me now?

Sir John Gorman: The Member could get a written answer. I call Mr McNamee.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order.

Sir John Gorman: Mr Pat McNamee’s point of order was made an hour ago.

Mr Pat McNamee: I refer to Standing Order 19(2). During questions to the acting First Minister and acting Deputy First Minister, and while asking a supplementary question to Question 6, Mr McFarland made a statement that was factually incorrect. He referred to three members of Sinn Féin who were arrested in Colombia. That statement was incorrect and improper.

Sir John Gorman: Mr McFarland is not in the House. I shall ask him to respond to you.

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order. Question Time for each Minister should last for 30 minutes exactly. You cut a Member off when the clock showed 29 minutes, 28 seconds. The Member obviously did not get to complete his question. It may well have been that he would not have received an answer — given the Minister’s reputation, he probably would not have had an answer anyway even if he had had another 10 minutes — but he was unable to ask his question. It is incumbent on you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to explain how you intend to redress such a genuine grievance.

Sir John Gorman: I quote an old saying from my days of studying Latin:
"De minimis non curat lex".
It means, "the law does not concern itself with trivia". I am sure that that took me four seconds to say. I have no reason to believe that the Member was in any way inhibited. All that he could have got by way of a response was about — at the most — a sentence.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has correctly quoted from Standing Orders that Question Time should last for 30 minutes. By his account, I was cut off 32 seconds before the end. After you cut me off, I looked at the clock and at least 15 seconds remained. Therefore, I probably lost at least half of the time that I should have had to pose the supplementary question to the Minister. I am afraid that my Latin is not as good as yours, but that does not seem to be "de minimis" to me.

Sir John Gorman: The Minister will respond in writing to the Member.

Mr David Ford: Therefore, he will respond to a question that I have not yet asked.

Mr Sam Foster: The Member will receive a written answer. I thank Mr Wilson for his gratuitous remarks.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order. I am unsure, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether you or the preceding Deputy Speaker will respond to the point of order raised by the Member from Sinn Féin. However, if you do, will you take into account that one of those arrested in Colombia was a Sinn Féin election worker, another was a leading member on the platform at a Sinn Féin conference and the third man was the official Sinn Féin representative for South America?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Robinson, you know that that is not a point of order.

Irish Justice System

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with concern the failure of the Irish justice system to resolve the rape/incest case of the daughter of British citizen Sarah Bland.
I bring the motion before the House because I believe that the rights of a British woman and her daughter, who lived in Dublin, were trampled underfoot in a most appalling manner by the authorities there.
The matter should have been debated in Dáil Éireann; it should have been processed by an Irish court. It is on today’s Order Paper because of the failure of successive Dublin Governments and the Dublin courts to face up to their responsibilities. The case is a political message to all those in the political establishment of the South and, as long as the gross injustice, known as the Bland case, remains unresolved, anything that the Irish authorities may say about rights, equality, justice, honour and truth should be treated with contempt. If the Bland case is a lesson in how the Dublin authorities would treat one of its own, the political significance of that should never be lost on Unionists in the House and outside.
The case concerns a young Roman Catholic woman, Sarah Bland, living in the midlands of the Republic from 1980 to 1982 and the 20-year fight by her resilient mother, Patricia Bland, to right the crimes visited on that family. The case continues to this day, but I want the Assembly to note it because of the rape, incest and abuse that occurred during the early 1980s when Sarah Bland was a child.
The case is the only example that I can find in which a child suffered rape and incest as a result of being placed, by a High Court order, into the hands of the abuser. Instead of rescuing and protecting the child from abuse by a court order, the courts in the Irish Republic lent themselves to that abuse. We must publicly ask the Irish courts and the political extablishment why a four-year-old girl was sent back to her abusing father by a court order after he had admitted in open court to being an abuser, a wife beater and an alcoholic. The child was subjected to incest, torture, drugging and rape by a number of men in a stately home, which, by Christmas 1980, was run down, filthy and chaotic. Had common sense prevailed in the Irish Republic’s legal establishment, Sarah Bland would never have been placed in the care of her father.
For two years, Sarah Bland exhibited signs of extreme trauma. She endured hundreds of hypnotic comas and revealed to her mother the extent of the hedonistic torture and debauchery to which she had been subjected. However, no solicitor would act to defend the rights of this child or her mother. When the mother tried to get help, she was also made a victim. Sneering allegations and threats were made against her. In this case, a child was raped and a family was robbed of its rights and, later, of its finances.
The case has been brought to the attention of five former Taoiseachs and the serving Taoiseach. It has also been brought to the attention of several TDs, including the current Minister of Foreign Affairs in the South of Ireland, Mr Brian Cowen. They have done absolutely nothing to investigate this terrible case of abuse. Why did the Dublin Government do nothing? The authorities know that to deal with the case in an open and transparent way would be to expose the hideous cover-up by the court system in the Republic of Ireland, where justice appears to be possible only when it will not damage a certain Dublin elite.
Mr and Mrs Bland lived in Rath House from 1971 until 1980. The family was given legal advice by a firm of solicitors called Gerrard, Scallan and O’Brien. Mrs Bland approached the family solicitor to get help for her husband, who was already suicidal, in a state of depression and involved in domestic violence. She sought to have him made a ward of court for his own and his family’s protection until his suicide attempts had ceased and he had received psychiatric help. Because of this action, increasing domestic violence was visited on Patricia Bland by her husband, and she had to flee the family home. She was amazed that the same company of solicitors — Gerrard, Scallan and O’Brien — then began action on behalf of her husband. They did so in the knowledge that he was unable to manage his own financial affairs and that, if their legal action were successful, the children would be placed back into the care of the abusive father. Despite the conflict of interest, the company chased Mrs Bland and her children and had them brought to Dublin for that very purpose.
In an attempt to protect her children, Mrs Bland fled to England on the advice of another solicitor, Mr Guy French of Fred Sutton and Company. He gave her bad advice, but his intentions appeared to be good. However, despite a hearing in England at which her husband admitted in open court to wife-beating, alcoholism, catatonic collapse and psychiatric problems, Gerrard, Scallan and O’Brien fought to have Mrs Bland returned to Dublin with her children. That duly happened, and her flight to England to seek justice in a British court was used continually against her in Irish courts to prevent her from having full custody of her children.
Once she was back in Dublin, Mrs Bland paid £1,600 to McCann, Fitzgerald, Roach and Dudley to fight her case. However, that company came to a private deal with the first company, Gerrard, Scallon and O’Brien, to ditch this "troublesome British woman". The agreed action resulted in a court order to place her children in the care of their father, even though they both knew of the evidence that he had committed rape and incest against his children. I hope that the case would have had a different outcome if that evidence had been brought to the attention of the Dublin courts. Not only is the fact that the evidence was never allowed to be brought to their attention alarming, but it shows that impropriety, greed and cover-up ruled the day.
Patricia Bland then turned to Dublin’s leading family law expert, Mr Alan Shatter, who is known as "Mr Family Law" because of the many books that he has published and written on the subject. She paid him £2,000 and hoped that he could rescue her children from degrading torture. Mr Shatter had just commenced his political career in Fine Gael. In order for him to act in the interests of his new client, young Sarah Bland, he would have had to sue the previous solicitor, Mr Michael O’Mahoney, for negligence. Mr O’Mahoney just happened to be the legal adviser to Fine Gael, the political party of which Alan Shatter was a member. That aspiring TD, "Mr Family Law," did nothing. Later, he became the shadow Justice Minister in the South of Ireland. He still did nothing. It was only later when Patricia Bland recovered her legal files from his office that she discovered that her calls had been treated with contempt and that "Mr Family Law" had suppressed the evidence of seven witnesses, including a leading psychiatrist and a senior social worker.
The handling of this case by the legal and political elite of Dublin makes Charles Haughey look squeaky clean. Every legal and ethical code has been trampled, tattered and debased. Every attempt that the mother made to protect and get justice for her children in the courts — or with the help of politicians — and regain her good name were met with indifference, obstruction and malice.
Her child was finally rescued when Judge McWilliam reversed a court order and sent the mother and children to Canada in 1983. They lived there in hiding, under police protection. However, after the rape came the robbery. Her estate was sold, and legal expenses of over £432,000 were claimed by and paid from that estate to Gerrard, Scallan and O’Brien, the original solicitors who should have declared their conflict of interest and refused to act.
In the following 15 years, Patricia Bland contacted five Taoiseachs, numerous TDs and MEPs — the list reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of Irish politics — all of whom did nothing. Only in the North was her case considered, first, by the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue and today by the Assembly. It is an indictment of the Irish Republic and its establishment that it did not at least consider this case and the matters raised by it. I hope that this debate will prompt someone with integrity in the South to come forward and say that enough is enough and seek an inquiry or tribunal into a sorry nightmare that could have been avoided if appropriate action had been taken in the first place. The evidence for the allegations is well- documented, and the documentation, tape recordings and video cassette can be made available to any Member who wishes to see them.
Sarah Bland is now 24 years of age. She is in the Building today. She has had a difficult life and has experienced fear and post-traumatic stress. From an early age, she has known little but abuse, exile and poverty, but at long last she can see her case put forward. Today’s vindication does not come from a Southern courtroom or the Irish state or any of its statutory bodies. Sarah Bland is willing to meet MLAs and tell them about her plight. She is also willing to be an advocate for victims of child sex abuse. I hope that the House can lend its full support to the motion and show that we want to see justice and honour in the case.

Sir John Gorman: I first heard about Mrs Bland when I was Chairman of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue. Ian Paisley made a moving speech which I took to heart. I made some enquiries and, as a result, was convinced that the actions of the original solicitors, Gerrard, Scallan and O’Brien ought to be investigated, as they acted for Mrs Bland when she first told the family solicitors of the dreadful way in which she was being treated.
It was as a result of that first description of her problems that the first actions were taken towards having her husband declared a ward of court. What happened next was that Mr Rory Bland went to the same solicitors. Having acted for Mrs Bland for 11 years, those solicitors then acted against her by suing her on behalf of her husband, repeatedly admitting that their client was Rory Bland. I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister for Justice, Mr John O’Donoghue, on 25 August 1998 and had a rather dismissive reply from him. Of course, he had received a series of letters from many other quarters pointing out the extraordinary instance of a solicitor acting for both clients in a conflict.
The guide to the professional conduct of solicitors in Ireland says that when a solicitor acts for two clients and conflict arises between the interests of those clients, he should cease to act for both clients — clear and simple. However, for 11 years, that rule of the Law Society was not observed. Mrs Bland pursued her case in Dublin, London and Canada, where she went to stay with her father, who put a great deal of money into the law case there. However, those cases have all fallen because the solicitors stood up for her husband rather than her.
Our equity in this — our right to comment on the law of another country is strictly limited. It was limited in England, and it was limited in Canada in the same manner. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs Bland in relation to the solicitors in the party. She had a rather excessive go at the rest of the judicial system in the Republic which, I think, is not to be criticised in the same manner as that particular firm of solicitors.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is in no way peculiar to the Irish justice system. There are huge inadequacies for victims trying to get successful prosecutions for ritual abuse, sexual abuse, rape or even domestic violence.
The largest and probably the most sophisticated study ever carried out is the Statistics Canada study. It is used throughout the academic world and the judicial system as an example of what can happen when cases come forward. It used a sample of over 12,000 people in Canada and showed that only 6% of cases are reported to the police. There is an enormous amount of under- reporting. Most rape and sexual abuse is not carried out by strangers — 81% is carried out by men known to the women. That 6% is tiny; 50% of that huge 12,000 sample had not reported the incident, because they felt that the police could not do anything about it.
In 1992, the police were still using the official term "No Crime", and that term was used on the papers. Our work in Northern Ireland and in the Republic has, I am glad to say, moved on since then. I know that because I used to go through papers to which a large "NC" had been attached. Today, reasons must be given for not pursuing a case. Fifty per cent of that sample said that they did not think that they could do anything; 41% felt that the nature of the abuse made it difficult for the victim to gather evidence that would stand up in court. However, it has little to do with that. Thirty-three per cent feared further attack. Recent studies in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland show that even when victims are persuaded to take their cases to prosecution, less than half of the cases are pursued — even after the police have taken them up.
I want to pay tribute to the child abuse and rape inquiry teams that I have accompanied to court in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. They have taken innumerable cases to court, only to find that many of the cases are dropped by the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Northern Ireland or in the Republic. They found that the witnesses were only as good as their evidence and that the state will take a case only if it feels that the witness is competent. If the state feels that the witness is not competent, it will not take the case.
I recently had to write to the DPP about the case of a young woman who had cerebral palsy and who had not even been interviewed by the DPP. The department read the words "cerebral palsy", dismissed the witness as incompetent and did not pursue the case. The DPP had told the perpetrator that it was not pursuing the case, but when I wrote asking the department to interview the girl, it changed its mind. As is normal, the perpetrator came after me, as, unknown to me, the DPP had given him my name without informing me. He took an abusive process application, arguing that his rights had been infringed. However, the DPP did pursue the case. The DPP had never actually interviewed any of the witnesses to determine their competence.
It is little wonder that statistics show that less than half the cases go forward to prosecution and that only 6% officially go to the police or to the judicial system. Only half of those go to trial, and only 10% end in convictions. Depressingly, the most recent studies show that conviction rates are decreasing while reporting is increasing. That is not peculiar to the Republic of Ireland – it is the case in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. Although more cases are reported today, our conviction rates are lower today than they were in the 1980s. Something is wrong with the judicial system, and it must be put right before we criticise other jurisdictions.
I want to take up the issue of flights out of jurisdiction. That must be taken much more seriously in all courts here, in the Republic of Ireland and in Great Britain. When women flee because they fear for the safety of their children, they are held in contempt of court. There must be reasons for taking such drastic steps; some are even prepared to challenge the court that has asked them to hand over their children. That came up in another case in which I was involved — one that resulted in a successful conviction. It concerned a prison officer, well known in Carrickfergus, whom I can name, because the right to anonymity disappears with conviction. Occasionally, such people must be named in order to protect others. I did not name the individuals in the first case because, although the case went to court twice, no verdict was reached. The two unfortunate victims were separated, which is often the case. The victims are not able to support one another as they cannot be taken together through the courts. They are separated, and one is not allowed to mention the other. The minute that happens, the case is thrown out.
In this case, the Caldwell case, the woman had to change her identity. It is ironic that the troubles in Northern Ireland have given us information that we can use to get others out of the country. We were able to use the systems in place to help informers. The woman had to have a new name and a new insurance number, and she had to leave the country. Her daughters, who were students, had to sit their exams abroad. Then, after all that money had been spent, the court decided that she had to be brought back when the father from inside prison decided, as in this case, that he wanted the children made wards of court. That shows that the judges had little expertise and training. We spend a fortune doing all this, and it is all wasted. The poor woman had to return.
Fortunately, two police officers came to court to say that if her new identity were exposed, then all the time in England, where the woman had to go underground, would have been wasted. Many other women are in hiding. The man in this case had attempted murder. He swore in the courts and in the hospital to which she was taken — again, it was bad practice, for he was put in the bed in the next cubicle to her — that if he could not get her this time, then as long as he was alive, he would get her. That is often what such men say. That is undoubtedly why victims must take such enormous precautions.
In the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we are learning from such cases. Police officers have been trained to deal with them, and police policy has moved so far forward from the 1980s. The judiciary, however, has not yet been touched. The Law Societies in the Republic and Northern Ireland must take the issue of conflict of interest much more seriously. Recently, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was challenged because a judge had to put a young man into Lisnevin Juvenile Justice Centre — a juvenile who was too young to be there. The case famously came up in the newspapers. The judge had ruled that the elderly woman in the case should not have contact with the young man as he was below the age of sexual consent. The solicitor was dealing with both cases simultaneously, working for the woman and the young man and passing messages between the two of them. Again, it was the parents and an aunt and uncle who contacted me to highlight that. The Law Societies should stop allowing that to happen. The conflict of interest that solicitors have in such cases must be taken seriously.
This morning, I had a phone call about bail conditions. I had to arrange to have someone rehoused, to be moved from somewhere where she was quite happy to live. The perpetrator in that serious case had decided that he could get rehoused just around the corner while the case was going through the courts. The victim, who is taking that person to court, is living in terror. The bail conditions were such that he had to present himself at police stations on a four-weekly basis. Why were they not such that he was not allowed to go anywhere in the vicinity of the woman? What can be learnt from that to ensure that witnesses do not repeatedly withdraw? One third of all witnesses who start the process of going to court in rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence cases withdraw because of the fear of more attacks or intimidation by the person who perpetrated the abuse in the first instance. When victims come forward, they must be able to have confidence in the judicial system. They are victimised once by the perpetrator and again by the system to which they turn for help.
I will not support the motion. First, it has not been well worded. Perhaps Mr Paisley can tell us why it says:
"the daughter of British citizen Sarah Bland".
It might have read:
"the daughter of British citizen" —
comma —
"Patricia Bland".
That is not why I am not supporting it.
I will do whatever I can in the case of Sarah Bland, as in any other case. I am concerned that the motion points simply to the failure of one judicial system, and I am concerned that that is the reason behind it. It is not a criticism of the judiciaries, North and South. Had it been like that, I would have taken a different view, but I never, ever, want to see a sex abuse case used for political reasons.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I regret that Ms McWilliams is looking at this in a partisan way. If anything similar had happened in Northern Ireland, most Members would condemn it strongly. It does not matter where the abuse takes place. It does not matter who is responsible for the abuse or where they live; before God, and before morality and decency, they are to be condemned.
The House has a responsibility to lift its eyes beyond its own territory — especially to a country that invites us to become part of its system, invites us to go under its laws and tells us that our system is not the right system. It is to be regretted that that is not the view of Ms McWilliams. We all know about her work in this realm, and it is widely appreciated. However, her position today, adopted because the motion relates to the Irish Republic, is to be regretted.
The Irish Republic already stands indicted before the whole world with regard to corruption. There are five legal and public inquiries going on at the moment in the South of Ireland. The highest of the land — or their families — are involved in those inquiries. The legal system in the Irish Republic has taken the right to deal with such matters upon itself. We know the shenanigans of one former Taoiseach and we know how the courts reacted to that. I am glad that the inquiries have been set up in the South of Ireland, and I am glad that they are proceeding against the high and mighty elite, who thought that they were free to do what they liked, breaking the commandments of the land.
It is obvious from the evidence that there were matters in the Irish Republic that could not be justified. The Ulster Unionist Member who spoke in this debate — an ex-police officer — made it clear that on one matter alone there was a case that must be answered. How could a solicitor be justified in having two clients, and, after changing horses halfway through, go against the client that he had been instructing and taking large sums of money from? When one considers the relationship of those solicitors with people in high office in the South of Ireland and their standing in society in the South, one comes to the conclusion that those relationships were stronger than truth and stronger than righteousness.
I salute Sarah and her mother for having the courage and the strength to take on the case. I know something of what they have come through, and I know from my own 50 years’ pastoral work in this city how such cases drain the victim and those associated. I salute them today, and I trust that the Assembly will salute them by passing this resolution.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank those who have spoken in favour of the motion. I thank Sir John Gorman for his comments, and for putting his finger on the nub of the case. It was not a case of not having the right expert; it was not a case of missing a point of evidence; it was about the crime committed by the original solicitor. If the first solicitor had not acted in conflict with his professional interests, such a travesty would not have occurred, or it would have taken a different course. Sir John is right to raise that point. Had that solicitor acted differently, the financial estate of the Bland family would also have been protected, ensuring that the family did not endure the double victimhood of having to live in poverty subsequent to the rape and incest. It is clear that the first lie is always the most difficult to tell. In this case, the most difficult lie was that of the solicitor. Once it was told, as we well know, the spinning of the web was begun. It had to continue, in order to conceal the original cover-up. That lies at the heart of the case.
The House was shocked by the comments of Monica McWilliams. There was a good deal of padding, but, when it all came down to it, her reason for not supporting a case that highlights the plight of a rape victim and a brutalised mother was a missing comma. That is pathetic. What kind of excuse is that to give to the House?
Monica McWilliams was correct when she said that elements of the case were not unique. That is true. It happens every day in other jurisdictions. However, we are debating a specific issue. At some point, we must be specific; life is not always full of generalities. In this case it is disappointing, to say the least, that a missing comma has been used as an excuse by the Member for South Belfast. The allegation was made that —

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: No, you have done yourself enough disservice today.

Prof Monica McWilliams: You are not giving way because you know that —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member has done herself enough disservice. The measures mentioned by the Member have been in place since 1992, and the campaign has been ongoing since 1980. The measures that have been identified have therefore been wholly inadequate to address the problems that this case has thrown up. Pious words will do nothing unless we have action.
Members should vote in favour of the motion. By doing so, they will demonstrate that, in this jurisdiction, we are at least prepared to note the concerns and plead with others down there to listen and to take genuine action.
It was a mistake to divulge the identity of the Carrickfergus family. I hope that on reflection the Member will consider that. I know that the daughter in that case is still in hiding away from Northern Ireland. Her life has been messed up considerably —

Prof Monica McWilliams: She is one of my students.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: That may be the case, but I wish that the Member had not mentioned her name.

Prof Monica McWilliams: It is in the newspaper every day.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: That is all very well. It was very sad for that young girl who is trying to get a new life. That her case has been raised in the newspaper is not a justification for raising it today. It does damage; it brings it back; and it brings it home. That is what I have been told —

Prof Monica McWilliams: She wants publicity.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: That is what I have been told by the victims and, on that basis, the Member should have some respect for the victims. She may have been speaking to other victims who want a different course of action, but there are victims who do not.
The other claim — that in this case the judges lacked expertise — is also nonsense. The judges in the Bland case were not permitted to see the evidence. Therefore, they could not make the decision to prevent the child falling into the custody of the abuser. Again, that goes back to the original misdemeanour by the first solicitor. If the first solicitor had not acted in the way that he did, the judges would have eventually got to see the evidence. However, the fact that the judges never got to see the evidence until much later in the case, when the damage had been done, shows that it is a question not of missing expertise — although it might be so in other cases — but of the failure to show the bench the evidence. It was only after the bench saw the evidence that they made sure that the child was taken to Canada and put under police protection in exile there.
I hope that, given the evidence about the cover-up in this case, Members will not hide behind flimsy excuses but will put their money where their mouth is and support the motion in the way that it has been worded. I cannot explain the missing comma. It has gone astray somewhere in the transmission of the documents, but the meaning is very clear. I hope that no flimsy excuse will be used by any Member to avoid taking a decision that others have been too frightened to take because of fear of the elite — legal or political — whom they wish to protect.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern the failure of the Irish Justice system to resolve the rape/incest case of the daughter of British citizen Sarah Bland.
Adjourned at 4.49 pm.